Remember David Stockman? He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Regan administration most known for his budget cutting recommendations. He recently wrote an op-ed to the NYT that is worth reading.

If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

Continue Reading

The NYT reports that some New York state schools are asking for social security numbers of students. The article intones that this is something of a violation of a 1980s era ruling by the Supreme Court. The grafs:

Three decades after the Supreme Court ruled that immigration violations
cannot be used as a basis to deny children equal access to a public
school education, one in five school districts in New York State is
routinely requiring a child’s immigration papers as a prerequisite to
enrollment, or asking parents for information that only lawful
immigrants can provide.

The New York Civil Liberties Union, which culled a list of 139 such
districts from hundreds of registration forms and instructions posted
online, has not found any children turned away for lack of immigration
paperwork. But it warned in a letter to the state’s education
commissioner on Wednesday that the requirements listed by many
registrars, however free of discriminatory intent, “will inevitably
discourage families from enrolling in school for fear that they would be
reported to federal immigration authorities.”

For months, the group has been pushing the State Education Department to
stop the practices, which range from what the advocates consider
unintentional barriers, like requiring a Social Security number, to
those the letter called “blatantly discriminatory,” like one demanding
that noncitizen children show a “resident alien card,” with the warning
that “if the card is expired, it will not be accepted.”

But the Education Department has resisted doing anything to address the
issue directly, in contrast with several other states — including
Maryland, Nebraska and New Jersey — where education officials have taken
strong steps in recent years to halt similar practices.

“It is the responsibility of each local school district to ensure that
it complies with all laws and decisions regarding student registration,”
Jonathan Burman, a spokesman for the department, said in a brief e-mail
message in response to a reporter’s inquiries. “Under New York’s
education law, anyone who is aggrieved by an action or decision of a
district that allegedly violates the law may appeal to the commissioner
for a review of that action or decision.”

A more fundamental question is why did the Supreme Court rule that illegal immigrant children have a right to education? For that we can look at the actual opinion and some key findings. First, not really a surprise is that the whole question of educating illegal immigrants came from Texas. Second that the gist of the argument centered on funding for the schools. The ruling:

Respecting defendants’ further claim that § 21.031 was simply a financial measure designed to avoid a drain on the State’s fisc, the court recognized that the increases in population resulting from the immigration of Mexican nationals into the United States had created problems for the public schools of the State, and that these problems were exacerbated by the special educational needs of immigrant Mexican children. The court noted, however, that the increase in school enrollment was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. Id. at 575-576. It also found that, while the “exclusion of all undocumented children from the public schools in Texas would eventually result in economies at some level,” id. at 576, funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled. In net effect, then, barring undocumented children from the schools would save money, but it would “not necessarily” improve “the quality of education.” Id. at 577.

This is somewhat of convoluted reasoning, since the argument that the federal government, and state government supply educational dollars still boils down to the resident taxpayers funding that very same education. In Connecticut, we can see how that fairness in tax dollars from the feds and state works, cities like Stamford and Norwalk get little dollars while Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven get many dollars. School populations, immigrant population not a factor. But that’s a digression. The egregious part is that the court acknowledged that the schools would save money, and yet claimed that it would not necessarily improve the quality of education. That is so highly speculative since in the 30 years since, there’s nothing in the record to suggest that money, more or less, results in better or  worse education.

The more interesting court reasoning is that today’s undocumented illegal immigrant may tommorrow be a legal immigrant and so:

Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, “the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow,” [n4] and that, without an education, these undocumented [p208] children,

[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.

But if the purpose of limiting immigration is to avoid teeming populations of lowest socio-economic classes, then why not follow through with the immigration limitation policy through requiring that any student enrolled in schools be on the path towards obtaining legal immigrant status? The ruling then goes on to interpret the fifth and fourteenth amendments:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that

[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But equal protection under laws should also apply to the right to be deported. Which gets to the heart of the matter here. If the right to a free education is law, then so must the right to be deported if there’s no legal immigration in the works. Meaning that the schools which ask for documentation of immigrant status cannot discriminate and prevent illegal immigrants for enrolling in schools, but that they have a duty to report the status of students that are in fact illegal immigrants to immigration authorities. Just as if they would be obligated to report any other crime.

Of course no one slice of the immigration issue addresses the fundamental issue at stake here. American policies on immigration reflect anti-immigration sentiments, making it hard for immigrants to seek a path to legal residency. Thus the pool of illegal immigrants grow when a pro-immigration policy would result in more legal immigrants and stripping the “cost” factor out of the equation. Immigration, historically is what has fueled the American economy for decades. If education is a part of that economic engine, then the policies of who and how a student gets education should certainly take into account their immigration status.

Other countries, like Canada have grasped this fact and place new immigrants in programs to address assimilation either via language instruction or citizenship. The burden of teaching new immigrants English, if they don’t speak it, shouldn’t fall on local school districts when it is the federal policy that determines immigrant status. An immigration process that includes instruction on language, laws and good citizenship would go a long way to tap into the economic benefits of immigration by encouraging assimilation into American society. Instead we hope that like Darryl Hannah in Splash, our immigrant populations will just somehow learn about all this stuff through television.

It seems that Common Council members want to know more about economic development. At least, that’s what portrayed in the Hour article describing last Thursday’s planning committee meeting. We look at the issues outlined in the Hour:

“I understand what they presented and the structure that it has,” committee Chairman Douglas E. Hempstead said Friday. But “it requires further evaluation of the relationship between the private company and the Redevelopment Agency — and then its relationship to the city of Norwalk.”

“I don’t want to imply an impropriety, but how do you serve two masters?” Hempstead said.

The Redevelopment Agency itself is a quasi-public organization formed 60 year ago to further redevelopment efforts in the city. Sheehan compared the formation of the NEDC in December 2009 to the agency’s formation of North Walke Housing Corp. in 1987. The housing corp. deals with housing. The NEDC focuses on redevelopment.

Not quite. Sheehan explained that the NEDC focuses on economic development, the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency focuses on redevelopment. The difference  between the two according to Sheehan, is that while the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency (NRA) can apply for grants from federal programs, like through HUD (Housing and Urban Development) it can’t apply for grants from private foundations, which typically require a non governmental 5013c as the recipient. By forming the NEDC, a non governmental 5013c can now apply for those grants. Also, Sheehan, explained the NEDC can charge fees for performing services that the NRA could not.

As 503(c)3 non-profit organizations, both may sustain themselves through interest income, service fees, rents, public and private grants and fundraising. The liability of the Redevelopment Agency itself is limited through the legally separate 501(c)3 corporations, and each has a better ability to secure private, state and federal grant funding independently, according to an overview prepared by Sheehan’s office.

“The board of directors are the five (Redevelopment) commissioners for both (corporations),” Sheehan told the Planning Committee. “It’s two distinct corporations. The parent corporation is the Redevelopment Agency.”

On Thursday night, Hempstead’s questions focused on funding.

“Where does (the Economic Development Corp.) get money to do loans?” Hempstead said. “How did it get the resources? Did the resources come from the agency, and the agency gave the resources to the NEDC?”

During its existence, the Redevelopment Agency has generated income through its issuance of loans and fees. The agency allocated $4 million — roughly half of its assets — to form the Economic Development Corp., Sheehan said.

Of course the NRA has been in the loan business for quite some time. Like this one. Or this one. Or this one.

And in Los Angeles, that Norwalk Redevelopment Agency gets loans from the City Council to build parking garages for the courthouse, something this Norwalk’s Common Council hasn’t figured out to do in decades. But I digress, using Google can make that so easy. Like seeing how the NRA used stimulus dollars, through CDBG-R funds, are used to make micro loans, per the CDBG-R criteria.

There are 20 other Economic Development Corporations in Connecticut. They all do pretty much the same thing. For example, the Orange EDC offers this:

Orange provides Tax Incentives to companies improving their properties by $4,000,000 through new construction or reconstruction of existing facilities.

Hrmm, that’s one way to increase the grand list isn’t it?

Nauguatuck’s EDC:

The NEDC provides a comprehensive range of services focused on enhancing the experience of doing business in Naugatuck. Services are available for both new and existing companies, and are offered to businesses already doing business in Naugatuck, as well as those looking to move to the community. Services include:

• Site selection assistance
• Enterprise Zone benefits counsel
• Land use planning support
• Assistance with the municipal approval process
• Business plan review
• Specialty business finance programs
• Business expansion assistance
• Industrial and commercial property inventory
• Community development program assistance
• Start-up business support
• Business development programs
• Business marketing and promotion
• Assistance to businesses for government loan and grant programs
• Advise on real estate reuse issues
• Information on environmental and brownfields programs

Then there’s the Shelton, Hartford, New Haven and  Meriden EDCs.

I’ve touched on this before, but it seems that government process has diverged from solving problems for the greater good and instead solves problems for the least common denominator. Let’s take child labor laws. On the surface, it would seem to be a good thing to protect children from working in conditions that would harm them. But one law maker’s harm is another’s no harm. So the generally broad interpretation of harm can include children not working during school hours. Of course forcing children to attend school is altogether another harm, but let’s skip that digression.

In last week’s Connecticut Law Tribune, (h/t Colin McEnroe) there’s an interesting article about a three generation pizza restaurant taking of the Department of Labor over, you guessed it, child labor laws.

For Michael Nuzzo, so many family memories have been made in pizzerias.

He and his brothers grew up working for their father, Fred, in the original Grand Apizza in New Haven. And now Michael operates a Grand Apizza restaurant in Clinton, where his three children, ages 8 to 13, help out on Friday nights and Saturdays. Sometimes, Fred drops in to roll dough with his grandchildren.

It’s a continuation of a family tradition for the Nuzzos, spending quality time together making pizza.

But the state’s Department of Labor saw something different. An investigator visited Grand Apizza on May 12 and told Michael and his wife, Migdalia, that state laws prohibit children under 16 from working in restaurants. No fines were levied and no enforcement action was taken against the restaurant.

But now, the sauce is flying.

The Nuzzos fired back late last month with a federal lawsuit against senior officials at the Connecticut Department of Labor alleging that the state is encroaching on the parents’ rights to raise their children.

“I want to be left alone to run my business so I can pay my mortgage and send my kids to college,” Nuzzo told the Law Tribune last week. “My restaurant is an extension of my home, and my children are welcome here any time.”

Nuzzo thinks a local gadfly is responsible for complaining to state officials. “There’s somebody in town who has got nothing better to do, and she’s always been a thorn in people’s sides,” Nuzzo said.

The story about the state’s crackdown on a small family restaurant has made national news. The Nuzzos have appeared on ABC, CNN and Fox News to tell their story, and the fight with the state already seems to be worthwhile. “It has increased business,” Nuzzo said. “We’re getting calls nationwide, and some people just came down from Boston to have a pizza and say they support me.”

Legally, the case raises some interesting questions about state labor laws, how they’re applied and how they might violate people’s civil rights.

“It’s an interesting issue from a lawyer’s perspective,” said Raymond J. Rigat, who represents the Nuzzos and runs his general practice a few doors down from Grand Apizza.

In his complaint, Rigat argues that the Nuzzo children regularly attend public school, never operate dangerous equipment at the restaurant and always are under their parents’ supervision. Nuzzo added that his children never miss school to work at the restaurant.

Rigat’s complaint seeks a declaration that prevents the Labor Department “from prohibiting the Nuzzo children from learning the pizza trade under their parents’ tutelage at the family restaurant.” He alleges violations of rights under the First, Ninth and 14th Amendments.

The legal issue, the article concludes, may be difficult for the courts to handle, because the courts can’t handle nuance. I can sort of understand that, since families, after all, have a long track record of abusing child labor in the more agrarian days. And it was only a 100 years or so when child labor in the textile industry sparked all these labor regulations to begin with. But clearly this is just another case of government lacking common sense. The process of government can’t differentiate between something bad, and something benign. Which brings us to the next news bit of interest. In Los Angeles, via the LA Times, there’s a move to streamline the application process for opening restaurants.

It seems that in L.A. it can take up to two years to get through all the permitting processes before opening a restaurant. The L.A. City government, noting the boom and bust economic cycles, figured out they needed to do something about that.

Now, developers seeking to build restaurants will be assigned case managers to help them through the process, said Raymond Chan, executive officer of the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.

In addition, the city has worked with the county Department of Public Health to eliminate conflicting rules among the many agencies that regulate restaurants.

“Building a restaurant involves almost all the building trades — mechanical, architectural, health, grease control, electrical,” Chan said, and each one requires a different set of inspections.

Until now, he said, inspectors from different departments would come to a restaurant construction site and demand different types of safety measures, or insist that the owner pull out materials that another inspector had insisted on using.

In one case, he said, a restaurant owner put in one type of equipment for processing and removing grease at the behest of the health department. Then, he said, the city’s Bureau of Sanitation, which handles trash removal, insisted that the part be replaced with a different type of equipment — at a cost of up to $40,000.

Ensuring that all department regulations are in sync is something really needed in Norwalk. Talk to any Norwalk business owner and they will tell similar tales of one inspecting official requiring one thing, and another requiring something else. Too often the political shorthand for streamlining government is about reducing operational costs and it’s corollary, taxes. That shouldn’t the whole sum of the argument. Operational efficiencies can cost money to implement, but they can result in higher revenues by increasing economic development. It’s too bad that at least in Norwalk, the conversation about government stays moored to the dock of taxes.

The SEIU sent out this presser:

For the first time in American history, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in January that there are more public sector union members than in the private sector. This news should energize our members to help make it easier for private sector workers to unionize because public sector union families are even more at risk when there are fewer private sector workers who enjoy similar compensation and benefits.

Well color me skeptical because I really don’t think it is a good thing to have more public sector union members than private sector. Government, with the exception of most stuff in the public works arena, is an office job that in many cases shouldn’t exist. Yep, I’m one of those streamline government through the power of technology. Tech workers,  have not been fertile ground for unionization movements for the same reasons that office workers shouldn’t be in unions, the best tech workers get rewarded for performance, and thus achieve salary compensation commensurate with their abilities. This incentive system works. There is no incentive for union workers to improve their performance because the union movement has failed to adapt its mission from the manual labor protect the worker mission to one that addresses performance and productivity.

All workers are not created equal. Sure, bad things shouldn’t happen to workers, but the focus of collective bargaining has missed the move to the information age, where most tech solutions are better, faster and more effective than the employees they replace. Instead of fighting to retain people charged with entering stuff into the vast bureaucracy, they should be fighting to ensure that those employees have skills ready for the 21st century.

“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:

Here’s a workshop on how to qualify for government contracting. By the looks of Connecticut overall, and the rest of the country nutmeggers really need to understand this stuff.

Himes to Hold Government Contracting Workshop May 7

Workshop will help local businesses learn how to earn certification and navigate the government contracting process

BRIDGEPORT, CT � Congressman Jim Himes (CT-4) will hold a workshop to introduce small and minority-owned local businesses to the government procurement process on Friday, May 7^th. Many local businesses could qualify for government contracts but do not have the certification or contacts necessary to secure projects. This workshop will introduce local businesses to the government offices that can assist them with certification and help them navigate the government procurement process.

The event is free and open to the public, but due to space limitations and expected high interest, reservations are suggested. To R.S.V.P, contact Shante` Hanks in the Congressman’s Bridgeport office at 203-333-6600.

WHO:������������������� Congressman Jim Himes

Small and minority-owned businesses interested in government contracting

Connecticut Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program

Small Business Administration

Connecticut Procurement Technical Assistance Program

Bridgeport Purchasing Department

Stamford Purchasing Department

WHAT: ���������������� Workshop on government contracting

WHERE:��������������� � City Hall Annex

1^st Floor Meeting Room

999 Broad Street

Bridgeport

The Advocate did a nice article on comparing Stamford to surrounding towns. Stamford, has managed to do what Norwalk is still struggling with –transform its downtown into a livable urban landscape. The tale of the property taxes tells the story:

Among the six compared municipalities, New Rochelle had the highest property tax burden, 1.6 percent, when measured as the proportion of median real estate taxes paid to median home�values.

Greenwich had the lowest property tax burden, at 0.5�percent.

Stamford fell in the middle of the pack, at 1.0 percent, a lower burden than that of Norwalk, which came in at 1.3�percent.

Considering that the median income in Norwalk is also lower, this translates into Norwalk residents feeling the pinch of property taxes to a greater extent than any of the six towns mentioned. The reason is that Norwalk still hasn’t taken steps to increase its Grand List significantly, and particularly with commercial development.

Coincidentally there’s an article in the Hour that talks about expanding the Enterprise Zone.

Redevelopment Agency officials maintain that extending the zone, which would offer tax abatements to more property owners, is needed to make Norwalk competitive with Stamford and get redevelopment efforts off the ground.

Councilwoman Nora K. King, however, said she is inclined to vote against extending the enterprise zone. King said the city should streamline its planning process rather than offer tax abatements to developers.

“We have a great city and I think builders have an opportunity to come in and build and develop here without relying on the individual taxpayer carrying the weight,” King said. “I think a better solution is to figure out how to streamline the planning process for the City of Norwalk and worry less on providing tax incentives and tax breaks.”

The Redevelopment request, if approved by the council and the state Department of Economic and Community Development, would extend the existing enterprise zone southward along Woodward Avenue and northward into the Reed Putnam area, where Spinnaker Real Estate Partners LLC plans to build District 95/7 SoNo.

Within the existing enterprise zone, 80 percent of local property taxes are abated for a five-year period. The state reimburses the city for half of the abated taxes, leaving the cost to the city 40 percent, according to the agency.

Moccia, who supports extending the enterprise zone, noted that nothing is being built at the District 95/7 SoNo site.

Stamford developed its urban core by being smart about incentives, fast tracking development projects, and recognizing that the only way to reduce property taxes on individual homeowners was to increase the Grand List. Yet, we have many in Norwalk, some even in politics, that don’t understand the basic calculations that are used to determine taxes. If you are one of them, that means you Nora King, then I urge you to read this explanation:

There’s a type of populism that goes like this, we don’t want our tax dollars to subsidize developers. But like the federal tarp bailouts, the beneficiaries of investment in development is not just the developers, its the residents and tax payers of Norwalk.

How can this be so?

You have to start with an understanding of finance. The taxes you pay are determined by very few things. One is how much taxable assets are out there, otherwise known as the grand list. The finance department spends months counting all the expenditures the City is the hook for and then takes that number and divides it by the grand list to arrive at the average mill rate.

Tax Levy�$ 246,269,456
Divided by: Net Taxable Grand List�$12,571,603,519
Equals: Average Mill Rate�19.589

…

Five years ago Norwalk and Stamford were about $3.5 billion apart in total grand list value. Call it 2 or 3 big developments and we’d be even. Today we are just under $12 billion apart. Call it the price of not keeping pace.

Yes, it’s an investment in your future to craft policies that offer tax abatements. An economy, as we’ve seen globally is fragile. You need all kinds investments to spur activity. Expanding the Enterprise Zone is one that all council members should embrace, and as quickly as possible. The fact that this issue was brought up in December and it has taken till now to get to a council vote is mind boggling.

And as an update, the Federal Government is reporting that the TARP bailouts have cost less than anticipated. The reason is that the stocks that the government took is exchange for bailout money have all risen price, netting capital gains that were unanticipated.

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.

Dan Malloy discusses missed opportunities at Bradley Airport with the Windsor Locks Democratic Town Committee, and shares a story from “The City That Works”.