By Susan Wallerstein

A recent New York Times article (7/21/10) described how Maine is revisiting its longstanding practice of funding public employees’ pensions exclusively through a state retirement system.  Public sector employees, including teachers in Connecticut and 13 other states, do not currently participate in the federal Social Security program.  Recent articles about deferred retirement option plans (DROP) describe the benefits of allowing area public safety employees who retire to be re-hired in the same positions.  Policymakers explain that these plans typically generate savings for participating towns and cities while allowing them to retain highly qualified individuals.

Continue Reading

“Amazing” says State Rep John Geragosian -D New Brittain.

“We were better off when they were playing solitaire,” says Turfgrrl.

“We shouldn’t be in the airport business,” says House Minority leader Larry Cafero.

So what are they doing up in Hartford? Well they, and by they I mean everyone in Hartford but the House and Senate Republicans, have bought into the idea that today’s spending can be put on a credit card for tomorrow’s residents to pay. They call it Economic Recovery Revenue Bonds. I call it doubling down on a losing hand.

“What I tell people is that I’m not very good with finances, but we balanced the budget with some very difficult choices,” Sen.�Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia, said. “We did our best. Hopefully things will get a little better.”

What they are essentially doing is borrowing 1.3 billion, and paying out of future revenues 180 million a year for 10 years. They are getting around the constitutional balanced budget amendment by actually issuing the bonds next fiscal year, when they hope the 1.3 billion really just needs to be 1 billion. Or something like that.

Here’s the problem:

Here’s the solution:

Larry Cafero has given up on negotiations with Democratic leaders on the subject of the State budget. According to a Ken Dixon CT Post report:
Larry Cafero has given up on negotiations with Democratic leaders on the subject of the State budget. According to a Ken Dixon CT Post report:

Minority Republicans, predicting that an imminent budget deal between Gov. M. Jodi Rell and legislative Democrats will not contain enough spending cuts, abandoned bipartisan negotiations on Saturday.

The Republicans said they are afraid that the deal will fail to address the state’s looming multi-billion-dollar deficit.

Speaker of the House Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, called the GOP protest “unfortunate,” but he welcomed their input if they want to rejoin talks.

Rell’s office said Saturday that a negotiated restructuring of the $19-billion budget scheduled to begin July 1 has not been reached.

House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, and Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said during a mid-afternoon news conference that it became plain to them Friday night that their input was being ignored by the Republican governor and majority leaders.

“The macaroni’s cooked,” Cafero said in a news conference outside the House chamber, backed by dozens of House and Senate Republicans. He said he participated briefly in a bipartisan meeting Friday night, but walked out around 9:15, when it became clear that GOP concerns were not part of the talks.

“I’m disappointed in the product,” McKinney said.

“I’ve known all along that the governor is faced with dealing with a Democratic majority that has a veto-proof majority, a Democratic majority who in many budget negotiations have sat there with their hands folded, unwilling to move.”

The GOP leaders said they will not participate in further negotiations because their ideas for further union concessions; privatization of state services; and a reduction in the 52,000-member state government workforce, have been ignored.

“We put forth all of our ideas understanding that they would be discussed, picked and choosed from and unfortunately we found out that’s not going to be the case,” Cafero said. “The governor and the Democrats are on the precipice of a deal.”

He charged that the pending agreement does not include major attempts to address multi-billion-dollar deficits projected in the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2011.

McKinney said recent news of an increase in revenue may have hurt the cause of fiscal austerity.

“Unfortunately, I believe that news of having some extra revenue has given license for the people who are in charge not to engage in or try to seek and find real structural reform for our budget, for how we spend money and how we do business,” McKinney said.

“It appears that the will of the majority is now to simply put a Band-Aid on the problem and not to try to seek and fix the problem.”

Inaction gripping the hearts and minds of Hartford legislators has resulted in the spending two-step. Step one, allow for longevity bonuses to be paid out to state employees. Step two, put off any bond offerings because those financial returns of state bonds have been so exemplary.

But the tax-writing finance committee moved to push that further to make $412.7 million in bond de-authorizations Monday, including 255 individual cancelations and reductions.

“We have not added any new authorizations,” said Sen. Donald DeFronzo, a New�Britain Democrat who co-chairs the bonding subcommittee of the finance committee.�”We do not include any authorizations for the UConn medical school.”

Rep. Carlo Leone, a Stamford Democrat who co-chairs the subcommittee with DeFronzo, said lawmakers are responding because of concerns about a “negative outlook” and potential bond downgrade from�the Wall Street bond-rating agencies.

“We all recognize that we’re in a tough fiscal environment,” said Rep. Cameron Staples, a New Haven Democrat who co-chairs the finance committee.

With bipartisan support, the bond de-authorization bill was moved to the “consent” calendar for non-controversial items.

Lawmakers also discussed the selling of bonds to refurbish the service plazas along Interstate 95 under an agreement that was reached with the state in November 2009. Under the old contract, the state got 11 cents per gallon from gasoline sales,�and now the state is getting one cent, officials said.

What was that last line again? The state is getting less money in the fab deal struck by Governor Rell in selling off, er leasing our service plazas? I’m not the only one asking that question.

State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said he is concerned with several aspects of the agreement. McDonald noted, for example, that Connecticut has given up a signficant cut of rest area profits.

“It’s a bad deal. There’s no doubt about it,” said McDonald, who is a member of both the Finance and Transportation committees.

But Sen. Toni Boucher, R-Wilton, although in favor of a joint hearing on the contract, said “it seems to me we’re getting a very good deal indeed.”

Boucher, who also sits on the Finance and Transportation committees, argued that is because besides providing food and gas, the partners are also going to be investing $178 million to overhaul the rest stops � an expense that might otherwise have to be footed by a cash-strapped state government.

“We are lucky to have a private investor that will shoulder the cost of this during a difficult time and it will create jobs,” Boucher said. “We should characterize this as a postive, fortuitous opportunity for the state of Connecticut.”

State Sen. Donald DeFronzo, D-New Britain, who co-chairs the Transportation Committee and is a member of the Finance Committee, said he is awaiting a thorough review of the contract being conducted by the state’s non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis.

“It’s a very complicated, involved analysis,” DeFronzo said. “But the idea of a hearing is good.”

A hearing might be a good idea before raising some more fees:

Lawmakers also debated over municipal fee increases on a bill that divided chiefly along partisan lines – with Democrats supporting the fee increases and Republicans against. The bill would increase certain notary fees, town clerk fees, marriage licenses, burial and cremation permits, and dog and kennel license fees.

By State Senator Toni Boucher

Joe McGee of the Business Council of Fairfield County recently stated, “What the recession has done is unmask a structural imbalance in Connecticut’s fiscal policies that has been building for years.”��� It has been clear to employers, taxpayers and a few elected officials for some time that our state has been heading for financial ruin due to the inaction by the General Assembly to confront reality. Our current budget deficit per person is nearly twice that of any other state, $1,700.00 (Nonprofit Quarterly, February 2010.)� And, deficits continue to mount: $518 million by June 30, 2010, nearly $1 billion in 2011 and $4 billion in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

For a time, the legislative majority leadership’s reluctance to confront reality could have been attributed to their belief that the financial crisis was just a momentary blip from which we would quickly recover. Today, there is no excuse for their denial. We must stop spending money we do not have because our beleaguered taxpayers and the bedrock of our state, our remaining employers, cannot afford it. Connecticut already carries the heaviest per capita tax burden of $5,464.00 (Forbes, March 12, 2010) in the contiguous United States, along with the heaviest per capita state debt of $4,490.00� (Forbes, January 20, 2010.)

What has become apparent is a desire on the part of some in the legislature’s majority to protect state unions at the expense of private sector jobs. Their agenda calls for further increasing taxes on businesses, individual citizens and private sector bonuses. Yet longevity payments, which are state employee bonuses based on years worked rather than productivity, have been a longstanding practice. No wonder our state’s business climate is seen as unfriendly, to the extent that management for United Technologies recently voiced a desire to go “any place but Connecticut.”

Recent events at the State Capitol highlight the need to make the difficult, responsible decisions necessary to end this fiscal crisis � regardless of how politically unpopular some of those decisions are. The latest chapter in the state budget impasse saga occurred last weekend when the Senate majority pushed through a so-called deficit mitigation plan calling for raising taxes by $180 million, but cutting spending by only $65 million. Keep in mind that the Senate passed this plan 21-15 shortly before 5:30 a.m. on Saturday after defeating plans offered by Governor Rell and the Senate Republicans, both of whom called for deeper spending cuts. Later in the day, the House decided against meeting in session to take up the Senate majority’s deficit mitigation plan. Why? It became clear that the House would not be able to marshal enough votes to override Governor Rell’s promise to veto the Senate majority’s woefully inadequate deficit mitigation plan.

Remember that there are enough members of the majority in both the Senate and the House to override any gubernatorial veto and pass a budget of their own.

So, where do we stand? �So far, the only proposals taken seriously by the General Assembly’s majority leadership call for tax increases, instead of significant spending cuts. If we cannot work together to address the state’s existing $500 million deficit, how can we hope to pass a responsible, balanced budget for next year and head off the $11.4 billion deficit projected over the next three years? �Democrats and Republicans must come together to resolve Connecticut’s ongoing, dangerous, fiscal crisis. At least half of the details included in our various plans are the same. Let’s agree to meet on common ground, and build from there.

Our state has lost 101,000 jobs between January of last year and January of this year. Unemployment is at 9.1 percent; the last time it was this high was 1976. State government is the largest employer in Connecticut, and our state workers are among the highest paid government employees in the nation. It should be noted that for every one dollar in private pay and benefits a private employee earned, a state or local government worker received one dollar and forty-five cents and that salaries were 30% and benefits 70% higher than private workers were. (Wall Street Journal, March 26, 2010.)

The bottom line is that Connecticut citizens are calling for immediate responsible action, but too many legislators are not listening. So let me repeat what you have been writing to me. You are saying you want an end to tax increases. �You want the state to cut spending! �You want the legislature to pass a deficit mitigation plan and a new state budget that does not further burden taxpayers and cost Connecticut more private sector jobs.

It is my fervent hope to report soon that Hartford has heard you, that common sense has returned to Connecticut and that taxpayers can look forward to better times ahead.

Senator Toni Boucher (R-26) represents the communities of Bethel, New Canaan, Redding, Ridgefield, Weston, Westport and Wilton.

By Senator Toni Boucher

I thought you might be interested in a review of last week’s public hearings on bills regarding other issues that are of special interest to our communities.

The Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee took up the annual $250 business entity nuisance tax on every company in Connecticut, including those that make no profit. The Finance Committee is now considering proposed legislation that would partially remove this tax, but at the same time establish a new tax on certain bonuses. In my view, this legislation, Senate Bill 1, simply replaces one anti-business tax with another anti-business tax — a tax that no other state is considering imposing.

The Transportation Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 427, which would further restrict the use of cell phones and various other electronic devices while operating motor vehicles. Also under consideration by the Transportation Committee are House Bill 5033 which would require seat belts on school buses, and House Bill 5474 which calls for the establishment of electronic tolls at state borders. More fuel efficient cars have resulted in declining revenues from the gas tax, and so some are looking for new ways to raise money for the state. It has still not been determined if reinstituting tolls would be possible due to federal restrictions. Questions to be answered include: will the state cut the gas tax; will border towns receive additional compensation; will the revenue stream be used only for transportation projects; are there computerized alternatives to e-z passes; and will businesses in border towns lose out-of-state customers?

Topics under consideration by the Education Committee include House Bill 5425, An Act Concerning Special Educa-tion which would establish that the burden of proof lies with the party requesting a special education hearing, and House Bill 5491 An Act Concerning Certain School Districts Reforms to Re-duce the Achievement Gap in Connec-ticut which would allow parents to vote to restructure a school if they are in need of improvement.

When constituents take the time to share their concerns and propose ideas about state issues that are important to them, I have often been able to spearhead changes in state law that not only assist them but also help many others. Some of those legislative proposals under consideration this year include:

Senate Bill 363, An Act Concerning Polling Places For Primaries, would permit municipalities to save money by using fewer polling places for primaries, which generally attract fewer voters than general elections.

Senate Bill 335, An Act Concerning Justices of the Peace which would allow justices of the peace who are authorized to officiate at marriages in other states to perform weddings in Connecticut.

Senate Bill 253, An Act Concerning Proof Of Delivery Of Cancellation Notification Of Life Insurance Policies, which would require insurers to notify customers by registered or certified mail at least 15 days before terminating life insurance benefits.

The Government Administration & Elections Committee is holding a public hearing regarding House Joint Resolution 65, Resolution Memorializing Congress To Abide By The Tenth Amendment, at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 17, in Room 2B of the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.

Boucher can be reached at 1-800-842-1421 or via e-mail to Toni.Boucher@cga.ct.gov.

Other states have them. Cameras atop traffic lights that automatically snap a photo of cars that run red lights. They are, to put it simply, controversial. The chief arguments for them go along these lines. Police Departments don’t have the manpower to enforce every traffic law, motorists know it, so they drive recklessly. The chief argument against them is that they violate some vague civil liberties and are money makers for governments.

Neither position really covers the issue in a fair manner. Like most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

In Connecticut, no municipality is allowed to use them. The question before the legislature is decide on whether to allow them. Today, Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. and NHPD Assistant Chief KenGillespie will join the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM),�members of the Connecticut General Assembly, Yale-New Haven Hospital and�the CT Livable Streets Campaign�to announce support for the legislation, at a press conference in New Haven.

In March of last year, S.B. 149 made it out of the Transportation Committee, only to get stalled out in the much and mire of the endless budget debates. That bill featured the magnanimous gesture of a 50/50 revenue split with municipalities. I’d almost bet that somehow the burden of installation and maintenance fell 100% to the municipality.

The New Haven Independent reports the ACLU position:

The ACLU said it has not changed its position on the cameras, spokesman Patrick Doyle said. It still violates people’s privacy and due process rights, Doyle argued.

He criticized the impersonal nature of the camera-ticket strategy.

“When you get pulled over [by a police officer], there is interaction with a person,” he said. “The policeman will ask you what’s going on. That’s part of due process.”

The CT Livable Streets project proposes legislation here and gathers facts and presentations about the issue here.

Meanwhile the issue of just where does revenue go from traffic violations in Connecticut is itself mired in controversy. Good governance pacticies suggest that No local government should retain traffic fines. The money collected in local courts should be transferred to the state and returned via a local aid formula based on population. Yet what happens once money goes to the state? The municipalities in Fairfield County know the answer, it doesn’t come back here.

Governor Rell last year proposed adding cameras to record speeders on I-95. You can tell she doesn’t often travel I-95 in Fairfield County, but I digress. Her idea then was to split the revenues between the state and the camera operators. The legislature wisely shot it down.

Moving violation ticket fines go to the state. The municipality collects only $10 out of each ticket. If the State managed to actually reinvest ticket fines into road safety improvements, like funding new traffic signals and improving safety for pedestrians maybe the revenue split would make sense. But instead the money seems to go into the endless bottom of the general fund.

Automating ticket enforcement of moving violations is not a bad idea. Bu the money it generates should not go to private companies and should not go for anything but capital expenditures towards improving road safety. Without that focus, it would just be another unfunded piece of legislation not based in reality.

State legislators are re-examining the ban on Sunday liquor store hours. The argument can be distilled to lobbyists for small package stores are against it because they don’t want to be open 7 days a week, large stores and stores along state borders want the ban lifted so they can tap into the lost revenues they see leaking to neighboring states without arcane laws, and three big city mayors supporting the idea because, well, after reading two articles on the subject I’m just not quite sure what the cities of Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven have to gain other than positioning themselves for more state tax dollars.

It all comes down to projected revenues that the Hartford legislators. For once I would really like for political flunkies to just do something for the purpose of streamlining government regulations. Eliminate the whole ban on Sundays and holidays and hours and just do something for the people of this state. Stop passing new legislation, and dedicate some fervor to repeal legislation and bureaucracy.

To the small store owners who don’t want to open on Sundays then don’t. If you think running a business simply involves opening your doors and people will buy stuff from you, then you are an order taker. Give people compelling service and interesting products and they will buy stuff from you, even if you decide to open on Sundays and close on Mondays.

What’s more interesting for legislators to debate is whether we even needs package stores. For a complete rundown of what state does what, the WIKI.

New Britain’s Pulaski Democratic Club was the site of the first salvo of formal endorsements by sitting Democratic officials in the race for Governor.

Stepping to the podium yesterday afternoon were Berlin Mayor Adam Salina; State Senator and dean of New Britain’s delegation at the capitol, Don DeFronzo; State Rep. (and New Britain Democratic Mayoral challenger) Tim O’Brien; and Berlin Democratic Town Chair Fred Jortner. New Britain Democratic Town Chair John McNamara emceed the joint announcement. Video:

Malloy’s Press Release after the jump.
Continue Reading

The legislative session is up and running, and here’s a new wrinkle unraveling up in Hartford. Connecticut currently has 18 billion in bonding debt. That is about the max Connecticut can bond out. Which means that Connecticut, as CT News Junkie reports, the state credit card is maxed out:

In�this letter to the chairs and ranking members of the Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee, Rell’s Budget Director Robert Genuario warned lawmakers that the state is approaching its bonding cap. This means it may need to consider scaling capital projects already approved by the state Bond Commission.

…

Revenue estimates are off $342 million already this year, according to Rell’s budget office and the legislature’s Office of Fiscal Analysis. Wyman is expected to release the latest revenue estimates later this afternoon, but not much is expected to change.

If revenue estimated continue to fall Genuario warned that by the Spring the state could blow through the cap by about $242 million. If that happens Rell and the legislature would be required to come up with a list of projects to scale back or delay a few years.

Since the bonding cap is based on revenues, the state could also raise taxes to boost its revenue projections. Last year Rell and the legislature negotiated about $800 million in tax and fee hikes, which were included in the $18.9 billion state budget for fiscal year 2010-11.