Putting It Off.

Twice in the last twenty years the Connecticut legislature has put off painful budget decisions until after an election only to hit the residents of the state with the hard truth afterward. The first big surprise came in 1991 with the imposition of the income tax. The second came in 2002 when massive state employee layoffs were used to try to bring the budget in balance.

We may very well be living through the third such occurrence now.

By agreeing to leave the second year of the state’s two year budget as is, Governor Rell and legislative Democrats have once again put off the painful decisions necessary to get the state’s fiscal house in order. Doing nothing in the face of growing economic pressures is irresponsible, but to make matters worse this is the second year in a row Connecticut’s political leadership has chosen to look the other way as fiscal crisis approaches. They helped put us in this mess and now they’re refusing to clean it up until after this year’s elections.

If you go back to this time last year you will find ample evidence that lawmakers knew the budget they were adopting was full of holes. Essentially, there was an agreement to spend more on new programs regardless of the lack of matching revenue. It was openly acknowledged and when questioned by the news media the leadership said, “We know and we will fix it next year.”

Well now it is next year and the legislature has not only gone back on its promise to fix the budget, it has decided to stick its head in the sand as the problem gets worse.

The two year budget cycle was adopted in 1991 as part of the compromise that led to the income tax. Despite this, the budget has been re-opened on an annual basis ever since, partly because legislative bodies tend to routinely put off tough decisions. It is standard practice to balance the first year of the budget first and worry about the second half a year later. We have a two year budget in name only.

This bit of history helps to put in perspective just how irresponsible the current course is. It’s using the equivalent of a huge budget technicality to rationalize putting off tough decisions in an election year. Suddenly – after 17 years of ignoring the two year budget cycle it has been embraced by the governor and majority Democrats.

You can make a pretty convincing argument to make no changes in the second year of a two year budget when times are good and the budget is in surplus. Theoretically it’s a way to prevent the legislature from going on a spending spree – but not now.

The economy is not performing well, revenues are down, everyone knows there is a structural hole that needs to be addressed. To say that doing nothing in the face of these facts is bold, courageous leadership is like rushing to the scene of a fire and then retreating to watch it burn.

The fact is Connecticut’s deepening budget crisis can only be rectified with a combination of three forces: economic growth that drives up revenue to match spending, dramatic spending cuts, or tax increases. The first isn’t happening right now and the state’s political leadership has no stomach for the other two.

That’s what this do nothing budget is really about – avoiding responsibility.
It is disheartening to know that they have pulled this fast one on us before, gotten away with it and are now doing it once again with no shame.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Onward!

Despite the odds, Hillary Clinton is not backing away or out of her campaign for the Democratic nomination. As expected Obama won North Carolina, she won Indiana, but the margins were such that the momentum stays with Obama. Doesn't matter to her.

In a way, playing hard until the clock runs out gains her some long term respect within the party and within the political world. As long as she doesn't resort to a scorched earth campaign that destroys Obama's chances against McCain she may emerge from this battle with the aura of an elder statesman within the party. But she has to lose with grace to pull it off. Winning in a fair, clean fight seems impossible now.

At the state Capitol, it's the final day of the do nothing session and I have nothing to say about it. Although I have finished a column on the subject for next week's HBJ. There's really not much to say. What has happened represents a total breakdown. There are no victories to be claimed by anyone.

That's all for now - got a car repair appointment to get to.

You may have missed this one:

Rell's Future - New York Times

Five to Watch.

New opportunities bloom after every election and legislative session. Opportunities for new faces in Connecticut’s political world to make a reputation or move up. The last six months is no exception.

The conventional focus – for the past decade or more – has been placed on a familiar set of names all waiting for Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to make the first move. Comptroller Nancy Wyman, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz and Treasurer Denise Nappier on the Democratic side. On the Republican side, there seems be a bench of two: Congressman Chris Shays and newly appointed Associate Attorney General Kevin O’Connor who continues to ride a wave of good will generated by his big hearted, but thorough drubbing in a congressional race against John Larson in 1998.

But with the new campaign finance law leveling the field, it may be short sighted to focus only on these six. The right candidate, with determination and skillful use of public financing, can turn the tables on traditional candidates who might make the mistake of thinking they can just wait their turn – like the old days. Elections and events put these five in play:

Bill Finch(D) – The newly elected mayor of Bridgeport has nowhere to go but up. As leader of the state’s largest and most beleaguered city he has a chance to make high profile progress that can put him on the radar screen for statewide or federal office at some point in the future. The greater the challenges, the bigger the opportunities for measureable, executive leadership.

Mary Glassman(D) – Newly re-elected first selectman of Simsbury. She ran the town before and she is back after a stint in state government and as a candidate for lieutenant governor on the ticket with John DeStefano. She got on the ticket by defeating DeStefano’s handpicked candidate for the job in a primary. Since taking over again in Simsbury she has made herself a presence on the state stage by offering practical solutions to chronic problems. This is not the behavior of a politician content to run Simsbury.

Ned Lamont(D) – The anti-war Democrat who took down Joe Lieberman – for a few months – has an energized army ready to take the field whenever he desires to get back into politics. How would his decision to run for governor shake up conventional wisdom in the Democratic bullpen at 55 Elm St.?

John McKinney(R) – Although it has always been assumed he wants to run for the congressional seat once held by his father, McKinney’s ascension to Senate Minority Leader gives him an opportunity to set the agenda at the state capitol in new ways and could position him to run for attorney general or governor. He delicately managed the DeLuca controversy after taking over and has taken steps on his own to offer a new Republican vision.

Chris Murphy(D) – If the freshman congressman can survive his first run for re-election this fall he will be in position – at a young age – to move up quickly. The fifth district is great place from which to launch a statewide campaign. It includes several of the state’s mid-sized cities, and one of its largest – Waterbury – and it is surrounded by Fairfield, New Haven and Hartford counties. It may be the best base to run from in the state.

Traditionally, constitutional officers and members of congress have an edge in statewide campaigns. But public financing and use of the Internet can change that tradition in Connecticut. Now more than ever, a candidate with ambition and a message that outlines a vision can break the hold the political veterans have on the career ladder of state politics.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Bobby Jindal - National Review

The Punishers.

We live in a society focused on punishment. It seems we can never get enough. Three times in the last nine months Connecticut’s political leaders have been pushed toward irrational behavior by criminal cases they fear demonstrate they are not doing their job - that they are not tough enough.

Last July’s home invasion murders of three members of a Cheshire family was the first case, followed by the release of rapist David Pollitt into a quiet Southbury neighborhood and finally, the random murder of a woman in a New Britain kidnapping and burglary case.

Each case brought politicians rushing to the microphones declaring it was time to end the violence once and for all – and in the Pollitt case – to find a way to keep people in jail even after they have served their full sentences. The first reaction is always to find a way to lock them up and throw away the key. The emphasis should be placed at the other end of the spectrum; providing treatment, education and help for convicts re-entering society.

Connecticut’s political leadership is not alone in the never ending search for ways to punish offenders beyond the full extent of the law. One of the most bizarre cases of over-reaching punishment comes from Hudson, Kansas where an elderly sex offender was ordered by a judge to put a sign on his home which reads, “sex offender lives here” and a sign on each side of his car which reads “sex offender.” You can imagine the reaction from the public.

This approach may remind us of the good old days of public humiliation as part of sentencing, but it inevitably leads to harassment of offenders by citizens who take the legally sanctioned embarrassment as a license to take things even further. The offender’s wrong does not make it right for government, in this case through the courts, to force him to live in fear.

In Ohio, the legislature is considering a bill that would require sex offenders to mount fluorescent license plates on their cars. The proposal is being put forth on a bi-partisan basis as a means of warning the general public, but how long before such a program leads to the beating or death of an offender at the hands of vigilantes? When does government sanctioned humiliation become something worse?

The accused killer in the New Britain home invasion was a registered sex offender. A law written to protect the general public from former inmates, who have served their sentences, inadvertently may have contributed to a murder. The suspect reportedly told police he decided he had to kill the two women he was robbing because he felt they had “memorized his face” and would be able to identify him.

Let’s be honest, publicly branding an ex-convict by using the Internet, makes it even more difficult for them to become productive members of society by making it hard to find a place to live and hard to find a job. Many end up in homeless shelters and descend even deeper into a life of crime, until they end up in prison again. In the New Britain case, the cycle led to murder.

The sex offender registry does more to satisfy our taste for mob justice than protect us. There comes a point when the thirst for never ending punishment becomes counterproductive. It would make a lot more sense if our political leaders put some of their energy - and our tax money - toward figuring out ways to prevent crime and recidivism, but then that doesn’t make for good headlines or re-election campaigns.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Amann's Run.

With most of the nation’s political junkies focused on the presidential campaign, one Connecticut politician has the vision to look ahead to the 2010 race for governor. House Speaker Jim Amann, a moderate Democrat from Milford, has set up an exploratory committee for the race that begins the day after we elect a president. There may be others thinking about it, but he’s the only one taking action.

The early entrants are often the first to drop out, but the evidence suggests Amann has been thinking about this move for years and may not back down even if Attorney General Richard Blumenthal gets in. If Amann wants to continue his political career there aren’t too many places for him to go after being speaker and the odds of a Blumenthal candidacy are no better than 50-50 according to many Democratic insiders.

As a potential candidate, Amann’s flaws are first to be noticed. His personality is big and bold and sometimes his mouth is too. His term as speaker has been marked by a number of incidents where he seemed to be out of step with Senate President Don Williams and he has clashed with Governor Rell, usually coming up on the losing side.

In the You Tube world we live in, he has the distinction of being the star of a locally famous clip in which he threatens to “crush” anyone who challenges him politically in his hometown. It is an unsettling display of temper for someone who wants a job that requires diplomacy and compromise.

He supported Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont. His support of Lieberman in 2006 won him a friend for life, but cost him dearly in the more liberal wing of his party. Lamont’s army rallied against Amann’s campaign from the moment it began and has declared Jihad against him.

On the other hand, all his flaws can be turned into strengths. His support for Lieberman and his ability to keep a hold on to the speaker’s gavel, even though his caucus is more liberal than he is, shows he is a pragmatist. Though his personality is outsized and rough around the edges, he appeals to the average guy who is also rough around the edges.

Amann’s biggest advantage is his leadership vision. Whether you agree with the vision doesn’t matter, the thing is there is no doubt he has one in a Capitol building dominated by reactionary policy making. Since assuming the role of speaker, Amann has pushed for a more thoughtful and well funded transportation policy, he has been an advocate for prevention healthcare spending – especially for children – and he has single handedly tried to develop Connecticut as a new center for the film industry.

Though each policy has been pursued on separate tracks Amann has pushed them methodically using the full power of his office. His choice of issues speaks directly to some of the biggest problems facing the state; healthcare, growing gridlock and the loss of traditional jobs. He has developed a clearly articulated agenda and worked it. Though a speaker does not have the power a governor has to lead a team, there is no doubt, those working for Amann understand his goals and are working to achieve them.

Finally, raw ambition is an attribute when seeking the highest office in the state. Those who snooze lose and so far only Amann has jumped out front in a noticeable, credible way. He has signaled he is not waiting for Blumenthal, Dan Malloy, or anyone else. Amann has established a record, demonstrated a vision and taken the first chance.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Hartford Lawyers - Courant

Sunday Sales - CT Post

Paterson Learning - NYT