A Plan for the Future, Part 2: Looking Forward to Jobs, Fairness and a Better Future for Connecticut.

Our nation and state need a strong plan to move forward to a better future, restore prosperity and begin rebuilding an economy in which our middle class grows and prospers rather than shrinks and struggles.

In Part 1 of this article ("A look at the reasons for our current economic and budget mess."), I discussed the fact that it is outsourcing of middle class American jobs to low-wage countries, and the free-trade regime that promotes it, that is responsible for the economic mess we are in and the resulting budget problems for both the federal and state government. And so, if we are to move to a better future, we must begin reversing the damage caused by the the outsourcing away of middle class jobs.

The strongest possible thing that would advance this would be for the federal government to make our nation's trade policies truly fair, so that Americans do not have to accept poverty wages in order to be "competitive" with sweatshops and slave labor abroad.

But I strongly believe that there are strong policies that our state government can undertake to undercut the damage of outsourcing and free trade and to begin rebuilding our middle class economy. Here are plans that I believe would make a real difference:

1. Ensure that our state and local budgets are spent to support middle class jobs in Connecticut - stopping outsourcing with our taxpayer dollars. This would seem to be a basic thing, yet a surprising amount of what you pay in taxes ends up outsourced to low-wage employment. This has to stop. That is why I proposed legislation to promote jobs in Connecticut that would:
1. Withdraw Connecticut from the current state policies that voluntary subject our state purchasing to federal free trade agreements and, instead, change our state policies to require the state and municipalities to purchase from Connecticut companies and workers - with an exception allowing purchases from other states that have laws that protect communities, consumers, the environment and workers at a level similar or superior to our state.
2. In particular, ensure that companies that the state contracts with to provide health care services must employ people in Connecticut for back-office services, like claims processing and customer service. This would mean no more taxpayer funding to redirect customer service calls to low wage workers in another country.
2. Take this a step further, with an organized plan to create jobs in Connecticut by deeply examining what our state and local governments buy to make sure than anything that can be made here in Connecticut is, if at all possible. This would work by:
1. Setting up a process to review current state and municipal procurement practices, to identify opportunities for increasing the use of in-state companies to produce goods and services - especially in the manufacturing of goods.
2. Ensuring sales for these in-state manufacturers and service providers by requiring state agencies and municipalities to purchase from these in-state companies.
3. Further increasing sales for these in-state companies by requiring vendors doing more than a certain amount of business with state agencies, quasi-public agencies and municipalities to purchase from the in-state manufacturers and service providers.
3. To help build the new Connecticut manufacturing created under the plan outlined in step #2, above, as well as to help other Connecticut businesses struggling to find the capital to grow and create jobs, our state should redirect all new investments in public pension funds (and eventually all existing investments) to businesses and community banks here in our own state, rather than in Wall Street.

I will say that none of these ideas is currently being received warmly at the State Capitol. It is hard to convince many politicians that that the way things have been working in our economy is the problem that is causing our economic and budget difficulties and that, therefore, we need to be looking to a new and very different way forward.

But while politicians stuck in the status quo may be uncomfortable with the changes I am proposing, in these tough times, these ideas are pretty basic and common sense:

• Buying from Connecticut companies and workers with our own taxpayer dollars, instead of from China or other low-wage places.
• Investing in jobs in Connecticut instead of worldwide.

If we do not buy from Connecticut companies and invest our money in Connecticut businesses, what are we saying about our own state economy? That Connecticut-made goods and services are not good enough? That Connecticut businesses are not worth investing in? That our own state economy is a bad investment?

If we are going to start truly turning things around, we need to start believing in our own state enough so that buying from and investing in Connecticut is not just something we do for pride and self-interest, but because we believe that the things our own neighbors in Connecticut make really are the best.

The ideas I have outlined here are certainly not the only strategies that our state can use to leverage our state's purchasing, public policy and investment power rebuild Connecticut's manufacturing base and state economy. We should, and I certainly will, look for other ways to accomplish this. But the ideas here would be a real start.

I sincerely hope that the federal government will change course and move away from free-trade and other policies that allow or even encourage the outsourcing away of middle-class American jobs to low-wage places. But I do not think that we, as the people of our state, can wait for that to happen. Action is needed now to create jobs, rebuild our middle class economy and start to undo the forty years of damage Wall Street has done to the American dream.

I hope, for the good of generations to come, that the other elected officials in our state government will agree.

A Plan for the Future, Part 1: A look at the reasons for our current economic and budget mess.

The changes going on in our nation and state have been so rapid and devastating that many people, including most elected officials, are in a mode merely to cope with and get through the immediate problems in front of us. But, especially in our present crisis, those immediate problems are not going to truly get better unless we confront the real reasons for our present crisis and the solutions that are needed to build a better future.

It needs to be said. The real problem is outsourcing. The real reason that our economy is in a shambles and, thus, causing the revenue problems for our federal, state and municipal governments, is that Wall Street and the big corporations they run have been undercutting the paychecks of middle class American families by outsourcing to low-wage places in the world.

Sometimes the harm has come from moving jobs from places like Connecticut to low-wage parts of our own country, but the real damage has come from moving jobs to low-wage parts of the world - places where yearly wages are often less than weekly wages in Connecticut, places of sweatshops and debt traps of company housing and stores. Even minimum wage jobs here pay many times more than the sweatshop wages (or, worse slave-labor) such as in China.

This did not just start in 2008 when the recession began. It has been going since the late 1960s in a four-decade run of Wall Street transferring middle class American manufacturing jobs to countries where they can pay a pittance in wages, and then make a killing in profits by selling those products back here at similar prices to what they were charging when middle-class-wage American workers made them.

Over four decades, more and more industrial jobs and more and more of our nation's manufacturing capacity has been (and still is being, by the way) shipped overseas. When our economy was healthy and sustainable, back in the 1960s and before, a quarter of our economic output was in manufacturing. Now it is closer to ten percent, a number that is far too low for a sustainable economy. (Click here to see my previous article on this, "Why the Wall Street crowd wants to blame you for the recession.")

Wall Street kept Americans from objecting to this by telling us that the old, dirty manufacturing jobs were, for Americans, being replaced by shiny, new, service-sector office jobs, in which Americans were to be the brains of the world economy, with people in places like Asia and South America doing all the hard, factory work. But, this was a snake-oil sales job the whole time. The real truth is the middle class American economy, minus most of our manufacturing sector, has been increasingly propped-up over these past four decades by debt - massive quantities of consumer and public debt, which Wall Street was very glad to extend in order to keep in motion their buy-low-wage-abroad, sell-high-price-here corporate profit machine.

In recent years, this snake-oil salesmanship has been laid bare, as, now, those shiny, office, service sector jobs, too, are being outsourced to low wage countries. Big corporations are figuring out ever more creative ways to outsource abroad for lower wages, so much so that it seem that any job can be outsourced. And this belies the starry-eyed notions that, if only we improve ourselves as Americans, make ourselves better educated, better trained, more productive and invest in better research, that we can create new jobs to replace the ones that were outsourced. The hard truth is that any new jobs that replace the outsourced jobs will likely also be outsourced to low wage countries, too.

The cold, hard truth is that corporate outsourcing for lower wages - and the free trade regime that allows it - has been destroying the American middle class. And, if this process is not put in check, our country will become much, much poorer.

The economic collapse in 2008 was not just a cyclical recession, and it was also not just a mess caused by irresponsibly exotic derivatives trading on Wall Street. What really happened in 2008 was the moment when middle class America could no longer be propped-up by the fictional economy maintained by the nation-sized ponzi scheme of debt and derivatives Wall Street had been running. In its place, Americans were suddenly exposed to what an economy looks like after outsourcing most of its productive base to low-wage countries.

And so over the course of the past two-plus years - in the face of massive layoffs, a jobless "recovery" and general pressure to lower wages, salaries, health coverage and pensions - Americans have been making tough household choices about what parts of their own middle class lives they must cut in order to balance their household budgets. And, in this process, it is becoming painfully evident that the things that they are now forced to do without are leaving them at a lower standard of living.

On top of this, those same people are being asked to accept a further reduction in their standard of living in the form of reduced public services from the government. That is because, when political rhetoric gives way to reality, the truth is that most of the people benefiting from public services are the middle class. And so, when politicians elected on a platform of cutting government actually have to do it, they must propose things like cutting Social Security, Medicare and education because the reality is that things like that are most of what "government spending" is.

All-in-all, the result of this reduced standard of living is that people are angry - and justifiably. Unfortunately, thanks to a corporate-owned media that would rather not tell people the real reasons behind the reduction in Americans' standard of living - outsourcing and free trade - there is a lot of diffuse blaming going on, but very little real plans for how to get us out of this mess and toward a better future.

While a lot of the needed solutions are the responsibility of the federal government - like making our international trade laws fair - I truly believe that there are important things that our state government can do to in order to build a better future.

And that is what Part 2 of this article ("Looking Forward to Jobs, Fairness and a Better Future for Connecticut.") is about.

Busy morning speaks to important priorities, like health care and education.

This morning was one of those times, as a state legislator, when I had to try to be in three places at the same time.  This is pretty common, but this morning's events struck me in that they touch on some very important values – like health care and education – the support for which is in real question in the difficult budget debate underway right now.

One event was a visit to the Cedarcrest Hospital in Newington, which is a state mental health facility that Gov. Rell's administration is trying to shut down.  Many people have real concerns her decision to remove these important services will result in people with significant mental health needs falling through the cracks and into desperate situations without the help they need.

On top of this, Gov. Rell is proposing deep cuts to nursing homes and hospitals.  Nursing homes have already been reeling – closing down and reducing staff because of years of funding that has not kept up with rising costs.  Now, Gov. Rell proposes a devastating blow to them.

Meanwhile, hospitals, which are struggling because, in the bad economy, more people without health insurance need their services.  Gov. Rell's cuts would seriously damage hospitals at just a time when we really need them.

Another important event was a meeting at New Britain General Hospital between local early childhood education advocates and the Graustein Memorial Fund.  The Graustein Fund has made a very significant commitment of funds to the program that I wrote about earlier, directed at improving education, well-being and prospects in life for very young children.

The problem is that the funding from the Graustein Fund is matching funding and it depends on the state keeping its own funding commitment.  That is why it is so unfortunate that Gov. Rell's plans call for cutting this important matching funds.  Gov. Rell's plan would cut a good number of things that benefit children like the Children's Trust Fund, early childhood education services, pre-natal services, after school programming, libraries and more.

There is a lot of unfortunate rhetoric that has been thrown around in the budget debate.  For example, Democrats in the state legislature have made billions of dollars of cuts in the state budget – many difficult cuts – but Gov. Rell and fellow Republicans keep falsely saying that there have not been budget cuts.

Just as bad is rhetoric that talks about budget frugality in pithy political terms in  sound bites on the evening news, but ignores the importance of the services that, in the real world, that are being cut and the harm caused when they are gone or greatly reduced.

We need leadership in our state that rises above this and helps us to approve a budget that balances the budget, not just in dollars and cents, but in the values we all should share.

Hearing on Gov. Rell's budget proposal set for December 9th.

Since people have been asking me about having an opportunity to comment on Gov. Rell's plans for cuts in the state budget, I wanted to pass on the news that the legislature's Appropriations Committee will be holding a hearing on the proposal.

The hearing will be on Wednesday, December 9th at 2pm in hearing room 2C of the Legislative Office Building, next to the State Capitol in Hartford.  Click here to find directions to the State Capitol.

You can click here to see a summary of the Gov. Rell is proposing.  To see a more complete listing of her plan, including cuts she already made herself, click here.

The hearing will be chaired by New Britain's own Rep. John Geragosian, who also formerly represented Newington.  Rep. Geragosian is the State House Chair of the important Appropriations Committee.

If you are interested in testifying, I am told that you will need to sign-up the day before the hearing (Tuesday, December 8th).  The exact order that people will be able to speak will be decided at random.  I will add to this post if I hear any further information.

Update December 3, 2009, 10:53pm:
Here is some more complete information on how to testify at the hearing, which also corrects what I previously posted:  "If you are interested in testifying, you will have to sign-up to testify by appearing in person in room 2700 of the Legislative office Building and draw a lottery number to determine when you will speak. Sign-ups begin at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 12/8 and will conclude at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 12/9. if you cannot appear in person to sign-up, you may have a representative sign you up on your behalf. If you or a representative cannot sign-up by 10 a.m. on Wednesday, you can still testify by appearing in person, and your name will be added to the list."

Two-Year Budget Plan Preserves Services, Protects Families

Recently, the legislature approved a two-year budget for our state.  Here is a statement from the New Britain legislative delegation about this:

New Britain Delegation Votes in Support of Two-Year Budget Plan That Preserves Services, Protects Families

September 1, 2009.  In votes cast late last night and early this morning, the New Britain Legislative Delegation supported a two-year budget for the state of Connecticut that protects vital services and the state’s safety net of programs without placing an undue burden on working families.

The $37.6 billion package — House Bill 6802, An Act Concerning Expenditures and Revenue for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2011 — was passed in a 103-to-45 vote of the House of Representatives and a 22-to-13 vote of the Senate.

“These are very difficult times,” said Senator Donald J. DeFronzo (D-6), “but these are the times when people need the services and programs that their government provides more than ever. This budget contains heavy cuts, but it saves those things that seniors, working parents, children, low-income families and the disabled need to survive, and it’s this support that will help to bring us out of this recession. This is a balanced approach, a compromise approach, and I hope that the governor approves this plan.”

“This budget represents a balance of cuts and revenues and it represents a shared sacrifice of everyone across the state of Connecticut while preserving vital service,” Representative John Geragosian (D-25), co-chair of the General Assembly’s Appropriations Committee. “This budget represents the values of our state and protects our most vulnerable.”

“This budget stands up for average, everyday people by protecting things like property tax relief, Dial-A-Ride for seniors, nursing home funding, education and magnet school funding,” Representative Tim O’Brien (D-24). “This budget cuts spending and lowers taxes for middle class and poor families while preserving important public services. While I do not agree with everything this budget does, it is a reasonable compromise.”

“I am pleased this compromise budget protects important programs for New Britain area families like Head Start, after school programs and Dial-a-Ride,” said Representative Betty Boukus (D-22). “Also, our commitment to fully fund municipal aid and education funding will come as welcome news to property taxpayers who were on our mind as the budget was put together."

The budget bill cuts approximately $3 billion in state spending over the biennium and raises $1.25 billion in new revenue to help balance an $8.56 billion deficit over the next two years. The budget also:

• Preserves the state matching grant program for Dial-a-Ride services that benefit seniors and the disabled;
• Increases operating grants for area magnet schools to encourage increased enrollment;
• Restores cuts to the state’s Family Resource Centers and Head Start programs;
• Increases funding for adult daycare services;
• Rejects the governor’s proposed cuts to nursing homes;
• Rejects a proposed increase in bus fares;
• Makes no changes to the ConnPACE prescription drug program for seniors and the disabled;
• Preserves the state’s $500 property tax credit;
• Provides full funding for the Care4Kids program;
• Saves the New Britain Department of Motor Vehicles branch office; and
• Protects municipal aid, including Town Aid Road and the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant.

Legislature approves state budget.

The State House of Representatives just approved the state budget that was approved by the State Senate yesterday.

With the economy in a slump and the state budget in great deficit, everyone knows that there are difficult choices that need to be made.  There are many difficult choices made in the budget approved today, and there are things about this budget that I do not like.

But, overall, I think that Rep. John Geragosian, chair of the legislature's Appropriations Committee, did a good job of creating a budget that makes fair decisions from the difficult choices.  This budget cuts the state budget by over $2 billion, by making tough choices to cut back on state spending.

Yet this budget makes the fair decision to preserve important things, like:

• support for our local schools
• health care
• Dial-A-Ride for senior citizens
• ConnPACE
• libraries
• nursing homes
• Head Start
• family resource centers
• technical schools
• services for seniors and people with disabilities
• funding for the arts - including the New Britain Arts Alliance.

This budget makes the choice to be fair by asking the wealthiest people in the state - those with incomes over $500,000 a year - to contribute just a little more to be able to meet the important needs of our state.

I voted in support of this budget.  Now it is important that Gov. Rell sign this budget so that the state will have a budget by the start of the budget year on July 1st.

Bi-Partisan deficit mitigation plan.

The House of Representatives is presently approving a plan to address the deficit in the current year's state budget.  It is a plan that closes $1.2 billion of deficit in the state budget.

With the budget problems we face in our state, there are a lot of things in this plan that I wish were not occurring.  On the other hand, this plan protects many things that would have been cut under the Governor's plans, like ConnPACE benefits for seniors and people with disabilities and important clean energy and conservation programs.  It also prevents cuts in education funding that were being considered.

And this plan is being approved with both Democratic and Republican support - a great achievement for Speaker of the House Chris Donovan and New Britain's own John Geragosian, Chair of the Appropriations Committee.

Rell budget freezes education and harms property tax relief.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell's budget freezes education funding for cities and towns and cuts PILOT property tax relief funding to New Britain by about $2 million.

A freeze in the Education Cost Sharing Grant funding is better than a cut, but I am deeply concerned that Gov. Rell's budget would result in higher property taxes and less local services - such as larger class sizes for kids in our local schools.

It is not a complete budget, either, leaving a state deficit of $2.7 billion over two years.  I do not know why it is that the Governor would submit a budget so far out of balance.

I will say that the Governor's job creation program, bringing back the Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps is a good idea.  It is an idea that I have been talking about as a good way to help people in these tough times with what they want - jobs.

But the fact that it is so far out of balance and leaves many, many important needs unmet makes this budget proposal very problematic.  I had hoped for better and I am disappointed.

Rep. John Geragosian ascends to important budget position.

Here in New Britain, we have long known the admirable qualities of State Representative John Geragosian (D-25). He has been one of our state legislators since 1995 and is well known in our community for his generosity, kindness, intelligence and conscience. He is respected among many circles in our community and he has been a strong advocate for our city for a long time. He is now the "dean" of the New Britain delegation, the longest serving of the city legislators.

Now the rest of the state gets to find out what a skillful and principled leader John Geragosian is because he has just been appointed Chair of the state legislature's Appropriations Committee by Chris Donovan, the new Speaker of the state House of Representatives.

News about legislative leadership assignments is not often followed closely outside the walls of the State Capitol, so it might not be widely known just what a big deal this is. The Appropriation Committee deals with the state budget on behalf of the legislature, and the chairs of that committee have an important role in the creation of the final state budget. The position to which John has been appointed is among the most influential and important in the state. It is a real honor for our community to have Rep. Geragosian as Appropriations Chair.

This is not the first time a legislator from New Britain has held this important position. As John McNamara has pointed out , former State Senator Joseph Harper was the Chair of the Appropriations Committee for the State Senate. (The Connecticut state legislature has a system of joint House-Senate committees in which each committee has both a House Chair and a Senate Chair.) And, from 1999 to 2002, one of my predecessors, State Representative David Pudlin, was the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. Rep. Geragosian now becomes the next of the important state leaders to have been from our city.

If you know John Geragosian's family, you know where he got his great qualities from. John is a realtor, taking after his mother, Harriet. Harriet, owner of Unique Reality, is one of the kindest, gentlest people you are likely to meet. Yet she has firm political values for fairness and equality, for which she strongly advocates.

John's father, Harold Geragosian, is a longtime local attorney. Harold is very respected as a strong and skillful advocate and as a man of great principle. He is still remembered as the attorney who, decades ago, advocated for New Britain's Puerto Rican Society when it was being formed and in its early years.

John has taken all of the admirable qualities from both of his parents into his own life's work. He is cheerful and friendly and liked by just about everyone, and yet he is a strong figure helping people. He worked hard as a City Council member from 1989 to 1993. As a state legislator, he has advocated for workers' rights on the job, affordable quality health care coverage, justice and equality and property tax reform. He has an uncanny ability to push aside the hubris of politics and challenge powerful figures on behalf of average, everyday people.

It is that quality that I suspect made him the choice of incoming Speaker Donovan for the powerful Appropriations Chair. With the state facing both a massive deficit and an even worse economic predicament, we will need strong leaders like John to make sure that the state government does not stick its head in the sand just when our state's people need its help the most. Getting through the problems we face will take a person with strong principles, an agile mind, a tough spirit and a really good sense of humor.

This is exactly the combination of talent and demeanor for which our own John Geragosian is known. He did not seek out this position, not being one to put himself in the spotlight. But, here in New Britain, we can be proud to know that he is just the right person for this important challenge.

Budget hearing at the Capitol.

Today, the legislature's Finance Committee is holding a hearing on the state budget.  I am a member of this committee.  And sitting in on the hearing today is the new House Appropriations Chair, Rep. John Geragosian.

The hearing is actually on the Governor's latest deficit mitigation plan, but it is the first opportunity of the legislative session for an open discussion on the serious budget problems that the state faces.  So the discussion has delved into some areas that the state budget deliberations are likely to take this year.

There are a lot of ideas being considered for how to solve the state's budget crisis and we are starting to see what different elected and appointed officials are thinking.  The discussion is very cordial, though it is clear that this year's budget process will be a challenge to the values of our state.

For example, some of the Governor's proposals involving taking important funding out of dedicated funds that are designed, for example, to do things like promote clean energy.  But, taking the good example from President-Elect Barack Obama's emphasis on promoting clean energy, not just for the environment, but also to create new jobs, we need to be investing much more, not less, in clean energy and conservation.

The Governor is also proposing removing funding that is dedicated to the Citizen Election Program - which we just created to remove the influence of special interests from state government.  This money would do little to solve the state's budget problems, but removing it could do grievous harm to the important protections that preserve democracy in our state.

There are difficult choices that will have to be made this year, to be sure.  But if all things are being put on the table, we need to also be taking a tough look at the state policies that benefit those in our state who have the most already, and not just at things that benefit job creation, democracy and the environment, or, for that matter, things like education, health care and property tax relief.  These are things that should be at the top of the priorities to be preserved.

There is a lot of rhetoric that all things should be on the table.  But we need to bring all things onto the table so that we, as a state, can look at all of the difficult choices so that we can really choose to keep the things that we value the most.

Opening Day at the Legislature - facing the economic crisis.

Today, I was sworn-in for a new term at the legislature.  I am very grateful to the people of New Britain and Newington for the honor to serve them.  Thank you.

This is Opening Day at the State Capitol.  It is a day of pomp and ceremony.  But it is also a  day for very serious work - especially this year.  We are facing a serious economic and budget crisis and the people of the state will need the state government to show leadership.  The last thing the people of our state need is a state government that sticks its head in the sand and ignores the need for real solutions.

The current economic crisis did not happen overnight.  And it is not a short term problem.  The crisis began because of the poor economic choices made on Wall Street and in Washington DC that destroyed the once great industrial economy of New Britain and so many places like New Britain.  Those bad decisions undercut our core industrial economy and created a make-believe economy built on borrowing.  It was a bubble that was going to burst at some point.  And that point was 2008.

There will be a great temptation among many politicians to think that we are faced with temporary problems and that all that is needed is to balance budgets in short run.  But that would be shortsighted.  That would be sticking our heads in the sand.

We need real solutions that will rebuild our economy and create jobs.  We need public policies that truly meet the needs of our state's people for job creation, health care, education, transportation, stable communities and so much more.  And, with so many families and senior citizens struggling in these tough times because of unfair policies - especially property taxes - now is exactly the time when we need to correct these unfairnesses.

Connecticut is known as the "land of steady habits", in no small part because change comes slowly when people who benefit from keeping unfairnesses from being reformed keep our state on its steady habits.

There will be tough budget choices in state government this year, to be sure.  But the real tough decision that will be needed from the Governor on down will be the choice to provide the real leadership to move our state forward - for a real economy with more, better paying jobs for average, everyday people and for a future where the unfairnesses of the present are swept away.

And that is something to look forward to on this Opening Day.

The local cost of the War in Iraq.

Sorry that I have not had time to write on the blog recently. I have been very busy at the Capitol. When I have a moment, I will write more details about what has been happening.

In the meantime, here is some notable information. There has been a lot of discussion about the monetary cost of the War in Iraq. The cost is so staggering - with at least one estimate of $3,000,000,000,000 - that the numbers are hard to conceive. However, thanks to the National Priorities Project, we can see some local estimate of the money cost of the War.

For example, here is what the War in Iraq is expected to cost New Britain in the 2009 budget year:

Taxpayers in New Britain, Connecticut will pay $54.4 million for projected Iraq War Spending for FY 2009. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

17,985 People with Health Care OR

67,211 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR

1,074 Public Safety Officers OR

729 Music and Arts Teachers OR

6,510 Scholarships for University Students OR

2 New Elementary Schools OR

261 Affordable Housing Units OR

20,900 Children with Health Care OR

7,556 Head Start Places for Children OR

751 Elementary School Teachers OR

662 Port Container Inspectors

Or, this same amount of money could be used to cut property taxes in half.

More reason for my idea on Auditors' hearings.

Today's Hartford Courant had an article about wasteful spending in the Department of Children and Families. It is very good that this article brought public attention to these problems. And I would note something also very important - the article was based on an audit report by the State Auditors of Public Accounts.

As I have noted before, the Auditors are a very effective and time-tested state agency for rooting out waste, inefficiency and noncompliance with the law on the part of state departments. I think that the legislature should take better advantage of what this agency does. As I said back in October:

...my idea is that, whenever the Auditors issue one of their regular reports on a state agency, the legislative committee responsible for that agency should hold a public hearing on the report. This will give Mr. Jaekle and Mr. Johnston the ability to present the major points their staff have discovered and recommended. And, it will allow legislators to ask questions of both the Auditors and, of course, of the heads of the agencies being reviewed, to gain an even better understanding of what is happening, and not happening, in state government - and what can be done to make things run better. This knowledge, in turn, could then be used by legislators in crafting better legislation for the state and in the annual state budget process.

Legislators cannot personally monitor state departments. We can visit them from time to time but, for the most part, what we know about how efficient they are and whether they are following the decisions of the legislature is in hearings at the State Capitol. And most of the time, the main ones we hear from are the top administrators in the departments, themselves. And these administrators will typically paint a rosy picture of how they are doing at running their respective departments.

Legislators and, as we see from the Courant article today, the public can only get a true picture of how things are going in state departments if we have an independent review. That is what the Auditors of Public Accounts do - and they do it well.

The legislature would find itself in a much better position to do our job if we, as I have suggested, hold regular hearings on the Auditor's findings.

Budget accountability hearing.

Today, the two budget committees of the legislature held a joint hearing on the state budget and the projections on the state's future financial prospects. The Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, of which I am a member, and the Appropriations Committee, which I am not, heard from representatives of the Office of Fiscal Analysis and the Office of Policy and Management.

Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) is the legislature's budget office. It provides legislators with information on state spending and revenue and tells us how much legislation is expected to cost.

The Office of Policy and Management is the Governor's budget office. It also does spending and revenue estimates, but its main role is to administer the state budget on behalf of the Governor and according to her direction.

What we heard from both offices is that the state budget is expected to have a surplus in the current budget year (fiscal year 2007-08) and next year (FY2008-09), but that there are budget deficits expected after that.

It is common for both budget offices to predict deficits for a future year, and for the state to end up with a surplus once we actually reach that year. They try to be a little pessimistic about the future. But that pessimism helps legislators and the Governor to be cautious when we planning for the future.

And, since deficits are predicted for the future, we have to think about how we can plan ahead to prevent them.

Another big concern is the size of the state debt: $14.4 billion. Connecticut has an especially high state debt because the way the state spending cap has been interpreted has forced the state to borrow for things that it really should not have. The problems caused by this interpretation need to be addressed so that more and more of the state's budget does not get taken up by debt repayment.

All-in-all, it was a very informative hearing.

All Day Kindergarten in New Britain schools.

I am a participant in the local education blog in New Britain, "Supporting New Britain Schools," and I write on that blog from time to time.

I just wrote a post on Supporting New Britain Schools about the recent article in the New Britain Herald on the all day kindergarten program in New Britain. Here are some of the comments I made there:

It is a good thing that an all day kindergarten program has been implemented in New Britain. Getting this done is one of the reasons I have been working for increased education funding from the state. Of course, while we were able to win a very large increase in state education funding this year, this article points show that the even larger amounts I have been pressing for are truly needed.

There are some very real and tangible ways we know that we can increase kids' chances in life, like all day kindergarten. But the property tax system already imposes an unfair burden on New Britain taxpayers. So we are caught between denying kids what they need, on the one hand, and unfair, high property taxes on the other.

And these are the reasons why I feel so strongly that that it is high time that all state policy-makers step up to the plate and do the right thing for all of Connecticut's kids.

Public Auditors: accountability and efficiency, and could be more.

One of the least known offices in the legislature are the Auditors of Public Accounts. This is office that was created a long time ago. Its establishment was a very good idea, and still is.

The reason why the office has a plural name ("Auditors") is because it is run, on a co-equal basis, a Democratic Auditor and a Republican Auditor. The Republican is Robert G. Jaekle and the Democrat is Kevin P. Johnston. They work very well together, and the partisan balance helps people feel confident that the reviews they provide are based on the fact rather than politics.

When most people think of an "auditor", they consider the role of a corporate auditor - someone who reviews the finances of a corporation or agency and makes sure the accounting is done correctly. And the Connecticut Auditors of Public Accounts do that important function.

But that is only one part of the reviews that the Auditors provide. They dig far deeper into the way state agencies run than just whether their books balance. They provide thorough reviews of the way agencies operate and offer critique on how things could be more efficient. Typically, when the Auditors offer this critique, agencies will start making changes to fix the problems that were found even before the Auditors' report on it is published. In this way, the Auditors have a very good track record in saving taxpayer money.

Another, perhaps equally important service the Auditors provide is that they examine how state agencies are doing in following the state's laws. This is very important in our Constitutional system of government because, when state agencies feel that they can get away with ignoring the laws approved by the people's elected representatives, the Auditors call them on it. This improves the transparency and accountability of government agencies.

The Auditors are such an important and useful function at the state level of government that, when I was a member of the New Britain City Council, a local Republican activist and I created a proposal to establish an Auditor position for the city, modeled on the state Auditors of Public Accounts and other nonpartisan legislative offices. The idea was dismissed when I was on the Council, but a later Council took it up and approved it, and actually had an Auditor for a while - who did good work. She was, unfortunately, pushed out of City Hall by some ugly politics, but it would be a great idea for the taxpayers if the City Council would fill that position again.

I would also note that I think that the work of the state Auditors could be used much better by the main people they report to - the legislature.

The Auditors issue detailed reports on all state agencies on a regular basis, with a lot of good recommendations and even more details that would be helpful to decision-makers if they were fully utilized. The Auditors are not supposed to be an advocacy group. When they discover that something is awry, their only job is to write it down and send it in a report to the legislature. Anything more aggressive than this would compromise their professional separation from the intense politics of the legislature.

It is the legislature's job to take up anything that the Auditors discover, large or small. That is the part that could be done better. I think that the Auditors reports - which, by their nature, are pretty dry reading - should be routinely brought into the public discussions at the Capitol.

The legislature holds public hearings on many things, more and more. In the last couple of weeks, alone, three of the four committees on which I sit have held hearings and meetings on things ranging from federal grant funding, to the taxpayer data on the stolen state computer, to the Governor's new parole policies. Public hearings are a very good way to have an open an public discussion about important issues in our state.

So, my idea is that, whenever the Auditors issue one of their regular reports on a state agency, the legislative committee responsible for that agency should hold a public hearing on the report. This will give Mr. Jaekle and Mr. Johnston the ability to present the major points their staff have discovered and recommended. And, it will allow legislators to ask questions of both the Auditors and, of course, of the heads of the agencies being reviewed, to gain an even better understanding of what is happening, and not happening, in state government - and what can be done to make things run better. This knowledge, in turn, could then be used by legislators in crafting better legislation for the state and in the annual state budget process.

I have been trying to gain support for this idea, and I will bring it up again in this coming year's legislative session. I think it would help to save taxpayer money, improve public accountability, make government run better and help legislators to do a better job for the people.

Money for a food pantry.

Making sure that the basic needs of people are met is just the right thing to do. And what could be more basic than food?

There are many reasons why people find themselves down on their luck and in need of a helping hand. And people in New Britain have always shown their compassion in their willingness to help people less fortunate than themselves.

For my own part, the role that the Spanish Speaking Center of New Britain long had as one of the city's major food pantries was an important reason why I have been a supporter of the Center and why I joined its Board. I was very upset when the Center no longer had the funding to continue providing food pantry services.

Since then, people in New Britain have been working hard to get one or more food pantries up to the capacity to meet the need. The strongest effort has been by the Salvation Army on Franklin Square. They have a building in the back of their main building that they have been working to build-out as a food pantry. The Spanish Speaking Center has also opened a food pantry referral service, in which they refer people to various smaller pantries that have available food.

I have been working for two things in order to help the situation. I have been advocating for the state Department of Social Services to make funding available to run food pantry services - and for dedicated funding in the state budget. And the Department has, in fact, made some funding available.

I have also been working to get funding to do the physical construction work that is needed to get one or more food pantries up to strength. I introduced legislation to dedicate $150,000 for this purpose for New Britain. I originally proposed this as something that could be used for more than one site - and it still might. It has looked for a while like the Salvation Army would be able to make best use of the funding in the short run, and that would be find with me, if that is what is best to help people.

I was happy to succeed in winning approval of this $150,000 in the state bond act that was approved last week by the legislature. (Though it is listed as "property acquisition", it is really intended for renovations.) I would note the terrific support of Sen. Donald DeFronzo in securing this money.

However, there seems to be a snag. Gov. Rell has announced that she intends to veto the state bond act, including the food pantry funding. The New Britain Herald has covered this story in an article Monday and another yesterday. There are also a lot of other important things for New Britain that the Governor is saying she will veto, as well, like money for a new facility for the Pathways-Senderos Center (needed because they are forced to move), construction work at the Prudence Crandall Center, replacing Brooklawn Street bridge, downtown development, needed renovations at the Sloper Wesoly Polish cultural center and more.

The other New Britain legislators and I have been working hard to address real concerns in our community that have been brought to our attention by the hard-working people of our city. Sen. DeFronzo, especially, has done a great job in moving forward proposals for funding that is really needed. If the things that we approved in the bond act were not needed, we would never have proposed them.

And this is especially true of my $150,000 proposal to help the good-hearted people of New Britain get food to the hungry.

I really wish that the Governor would back away from her hard line and agree to approve these important projects. And the first step is for her to cool down her rhetoric and sign the bond act.

My live blog at Connecticut Local Politics and notes of tax unfairness.

I would like to extend my thanks to CGG, Genghis Conn and Spazeboy for hosting my live-blog at Connecticut Local Politics, an online forum with people who have strong beliefs and are not afraid to express them. I appreciated the vigorous discussion, and I tried to type as fast as a could to keep up. Of course, I genuinely thank New Britain's Spazeboy for a very kind introduction.

Something that was discussed there after I left was about the unfairness of the state's tax system. My point that the state's overall tax system is regressive - meaning that people pay a higher burden the less they have - was questioned by someone who answered that the state's income tax is progressive.

This is a message that diverts attention from the unfairness of the whole tax system - a point alluded to by Gabe on the CTLP forum. The state income tax is very mildly progressive. But it is really the only progressive tax the state establishes. And, the income tax is not the largest tax. That would be the property tax - which does, overwhelmingly, hit people harder the less income they have. And, for the vast majority of people in the state, the largest tax they pay is the property tax. Add to that sales taxes and excise taxes, and our state's overall tax system is regressive - charging people a higher share of their income the less income they have.

The most comprehensive study of the burdens of taxes in Connecticut was done by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. You can see the study by clicking here (it is a pdf). This study looked at the combined and separate burdens of all the major state-established taxes that people pay: income taxes, sales and excise taxes and property taxes. (Even though this study was from 2002, the 2003 increase in the state income tax did not notably change this unfairness.)

While some people continually, inaccurately, assert that the wealthy have the highest taxes, the truth is that they have the lowest.

Middle class families paid around 10.1% of their incomes in combined property, sales, excise and income taxes, after federal offsets were considered, in 2002. And the poorest 20% of state residents had it worst of all. Their total tax burden was 10.2% of their incomes. But the wealthiest 1% only paid 4.4%, after federal offsets.

This is the big problem with the tax systems of our state. This burden is pushed down the income scale, with the middle class paying more than the wealthy and the poor paying the highest of all. That is why property tax reform is so very important - it is the biggest unfair tax that most people pay.

It is very unfair to people who are hurt by the unfairness of our state's tax system to completely ignore all of the unfair taxes, and then say that things are really fair, when they are not.

2007 Legislative Report to Citizens of New Britain

Sorry it has been so long since my last post. I have been working to catch-up with things outside of the legislature after the hectic days of the session - like my family.

There are still some loose ends the need to be completed, like the state bond act, but most of what will be approved this year is done.

Now, we are in the time between regular legislative sessions when we can start to build for the next session, which starts in February. I will go more into what issues I plan to work on in the future, but ensuring quality and affordable health care for everyone and property tax reform are certainly high priorities.

Anyway, I wanted to share a press release that was sent out yesterday on many of the accomplishments this year for New Britain...

City Delegation’s 2007 Legislative Report to Citizens of New Britain

The 2007 session of the General Assembly nears its conclusion with action on a two-year budget and many significant pieces of new legislation. Over the last few years, the New Britain legislative delegation has positioned itself on key committees to better secure state assistance for the people of New Britain, Berlin, Plainville, Newington, Bristol and Farmington, all communities we represent.

“I’m proud of the efforts of our delegation to secure significant state revenue increases for our two hospitals and five nursing homes, some of which are our largest employers and tax payers said Senator Donald DeFronzo. “In addition, state aid to the city equates to approximately 4 mills, which will go a long way to help the administration stabilize and reduce local property taxes.”

“There are many ways, big and small, that we were able to help New Britain—grants enabling the city to lower property taxes, support for education, health care, job training, local arts groups and more,” said Representative Tim O’Brien. “The New Britain delegation worked hard this year, and we are ready for more important work to come.”

“We worked hard to help our city and its agencies do the good work that they do,” said Representative John Geragosian. “Unfortunately the Democratic budget did not pass, which would have gone a long way toward tax relief. But the budget we did pass will be good for the city.”

“While so many of the total system changes that were initially introduced were not able to be made this year,” Representative Peter Tercyak said. “It made it extra important to help New Britain in one area after another. I’m very pleased with what we were able to bring home this year. This will make a vitally needed difference, especially for medical care, in New Britain.”

Among the actions approved in the biennial budget that will have a positive and significant effect on the City of New Britain are:

• A $6.5 million increase (the equivalent of 3.2 mils) in ECS educational funding.

• Restoration of approximately $1 million in state grants to New Britain to help limit property tax increases (the equivalent of one half mill).

• A 20 percent increase in hospital Medicaid reimbursements in 2007–2008 and another 10 percent increase in 2008–2009 budget year. This will allow the Hospital of Central Connecticut to stabilize operations, maintain and increase employment, and preserve and enhance the quality of patient care.

• An across- the-board 3 percent increase in Medicaid reimbursement to New Britain nursing homes including Monsignor Bojinowski Manor, Jerome Home, Walnut Hill, Brittany Farms and the Andrew House. These funds will allow these facilities to maintain a high level of patient care.

• A 4 percent across-the-board increase in Medicaid reimbursement to the Hospital for Special Care, providing for a sustained level of operations and quality patient care.

• $1 million in rate relief for emergency medical services providers in the state with high Medicaid caseloads, which includes New Britain Emergency Medical services.

• Important increases in preschool education programs, summer youth employment and after-school programs.

• Expansion of the HUSKY Health Care plan to include more working families, more pregnant women and improved dental services.

• A 3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for nonprofit provider agencies, such as daycare providers, CCARC, CMHA and many other agencies.

• $42 million more in higher education aid over the previous biennium for students who attend public and private in-state colleges.

• $5 million to secure and expand Dial-A-Ride Service for New Britain and area seniors.

• Special legislation to preserve the operation of the Boys and Girls Club summer drop-in recreation program.

• Legislative action to protect Guida’s Dairy from unfair taxation.

• $10 million to CCSU for repairs, alterations and additions to athletic fields and associated support facilities.

• Restoration of nearly $300,000 in Priority School District funding proposed for reduction by Governor M. Jodi Rell.

• Full funding of the access cost of special education when those costs are in excess of 4.5 times local per-pupil expenditure. This will result in an approximate 33 percent increase in funding in this category ($67 million to $125 million).

• A new state grant to offset half the cost of initial Fire Fighter Certification programs.

• A $100,000 grant to the New Britain Arts Alliance.

• A new $4 million competitive grant program in the Office of Culture, Tourism and Arts.

Budget approved in the early, early morning.

I am sitting in the House chamber at 5am. It looks like things are done for the night. I will write more about what was included in the budget approved tonight when I have a bit more time. But a few quick notes...

There were a lot of good things in the budget. But, of course, I was very disappointed that the Governor pressed for and got cuts in important grants to fund education and keep property taxes down. This is going to leave cities and towns having to fill a shortfall in their budgets.

And, of course, I am disappointed that the important tax reforms that I voted for and that Gov. Rell vetoed were not in the budget. The result of this is that most people in the state will pay higher taxes than they would have if the Democratic budget was approved.

I am headed home now. It's 5:05am.