Dan Malloy, Mayor of Stamford is Exploring Run for Governor

DON'T FORGET! Our next MeetUp is on June 3rd at 7 PM at the Silver Star Diner,
exit 14 off of I-95 in Norwalk.  
Featured speaker will be Luther Weeks from CTVotersCount, who will be discussing the results of the recent Connecticut Election Audits. 
Call 203-401-8065 for directions or more information

To be or not to be? Ah! There’s the Question!

 

Fairfield County – DFA was pleased to welcome Dan Malloy, the Mayor of Stamford to its May 7th Meet-Up. Mayor Malloy is considering a run for Governor and has formed an exploratory Committee to examine his prospects in the 2010 Gubernatorial race.

 

The Mayor began by giving us some family background, his early work experience and then went on to talk about his record as Mayor of the City of Stamford.

 

Malloy’s mother was a nurse at Greenwich Hospital and his father was a Stamford Selectman. After graduating from Boston College, he became an attorney and prosecutor in the Brooklyn, New York prosecutor’s office.  In that position, he prosecuted twenty three felony cases, four of them homicides, and obtained convictions in all but one case.   He served on Stamford’s board of finance for eleven years, and spent another year on its board of education. Serving for fourteen years as the mayor of Stamford, he has become the longest-serving mayor in the city’s history.  The Mayor also teaches a political science class at the University of Connecticut.

 

Speaking of the accomplishments of which he was most proud Malloy said that when he took  office Stamford was rated 35th in crime compared to other cities of its size but it is now rated the fourth safest city and crime has declined by 64%. 

 

In the area of education Malloy pointed out that when he became mayor only 28% of all children entering kindergarten had received any pre-K education, Stamford is now the only city in Connecticut that guarantees at least one year of pre-K for every child.  Malloy has continued his efforts to improve the city’s education for the under-five population and noted that another pre-K facility will open soon that will accommodate 365 more children.  Malloy pointed out that he is determined to eliminate the so-called "achievement gap" and noted that in Stamford school test results are up, class size is down and the city's education budget has risen from 44% of city spending when Malloy took office to over 60% today.

 

Under Malloy’s administration, Stamford is the only city in Connecticut mandating that 10% of all new housing must be built as affordable housing and he has been an advocate for locating reasonably priced housing close to rail transportation. 

 

Malloy pointed out that the city of Stamford employs less municipal workers today than when he took office fourteen years ago and yet the city operates more efficiently - in spite of the fact that the population is higher by more than 12,000.  He has also been successful in attracting financial institutions to locate in Stamford – resulting in more local jobs.

Malloy pointed out that though 47 other states are facing deficits, Connecticut ranks as one of the five worst-hit states in the country in terms of its projected deficit to revenues. The State faces a difficult and challenging future Malloy said, much of it due to the mismanagement of Republican Governors. He pointed out that by the 2010 election, it will have been twenty four years since Connecticut elected a Democratic governor. 

The present Governor, Republican Jody Rell – despite her apparent popularity - has been a less than active participant in the business governing the State and has the reputation of being frequently absent from her own cabinet meetings.   Under Connecticut law the Governor has tremendous power Malloy said and – by exercising the power of the purse – she has been able to block many progressive actions instigated by Democrats even though Democrats control the legislature.

Malloy was particularly upset that several weeks ago Governor Rell had requested five minutes of air time from all the networks to discuss the budget. During her address she told state residents that the government faced an $8 billion deficit over the next two years. Yet three days later when she formally submitted her budget to the state General Assembly, that budget had mysteriously shrunk to a mere $6 billion deficit.   

This subterfuge is a continuation of the Bush/Cheney/Rove mantra of no tax increases when, Malloy said, it is obvious that the Connecticut Legislature will have to raise some taxes, cut some expenses, delay other expenses, and resort to borrowing.  He stated that in the interests of long term stability and security he had made such hard and unpopular choices as Mayor of Stamford and – if he does decide to run for Governor – he would be willing to make them again in order to ensure the long term financial health of the State.  

Malloy also blamed Governor Rell for a number of problems with state government that were extant even before the current crisis.  He sharply criticized Rell for the nearly $1 billion cost overrun her administration incurred in building a rolling stock repair facility near New Haven and $100 million loss on another program. 

Malloy charged that although Rell claims her budget plan will cut $650 million from the budget what it does in actual fact is to kick the can down the road by passing the expenses out to 2011.  Rell appears to be philosophically opposed to having the federal government give money to the State and Malloy noted that although the transportation districts in many other states are receiving money for new rail cars, Connecticut adds to an already fraught transportation situation by passing that burden on to its users.  

When asked what were the five most important issues facing Connecticut Malloy answered “Jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs and jobs!”  Malloy compared New Jersey's successes in job growth to that of Connecticut.  Although Connecticut is home to some of the nation’s finest educational institutions those graduates are still leaving the area in droves so it is imperative that the State works on ways to retain some of the nations’ best educated work force.

Malloy pointed out that Connecticut’s Yale University and New Jersey’s Princeton University are equidistant from Manhattan yet New Jersey has maintained consistent job growth but Connecticut ranks last of all fifty states in job growth.  “Green” jobs are very much local jobs and Connecticut needs to invest in growth in this area.  We need to help build a business-friendly environment for new technologies and develop programs to attract these and other new business to the state. 
 

Malloy is passionate about improving transportation and discussed initiatives that would help to improve the State’s overcrowded highways. Developing a light rail system and funding to upgrade Metro North would be good places to start, as would a much needed freight rail link from the Port of Elizabeth. Any one of these options would help relieve the congestion on Connecticut’s overloaded highways. He pointed out that New Jersey has greatly improved its transportation system, adding light rail, replacing rolling stock, and adding ferry service to Manhattan; Connecticut, on the other hand, has watched its transportation system deteriorate dramatically.  In discussing the reintroduction of tolls on Connecticut’s roads, Malloy said that he would be against such a step unless it could be shown that the funds collected would be used exclusively for highway improvement.

When questioned about healthcare Malloy pointed out that already the much touted Massachusetts' universal health plan has run into problems, and although it was covering more people, it was also proving to be unexpectedly expensive.  He does, however, support the SustiNet program that would provide affordable coverage to all Connecticut residents.  This program is currently being debated in the Connecticut Legislature.  Although this program, is still in the planning stage it is hoped that by taking time to think it through, the program will be financially sustainable.  

While he hoped that President Obama succeeds in implementing a system of national universal healthcare at the federal level, Malloy believed that such progress will only be made incrementally.  He suggested that the state needs to improve its public health system, pointing out that after World War II America maintained the best public health system in the world.  hat system has fallen into disuse however, and needs to be reestablished.  

Because too many Connecticut residents are forced to get their health care from hospital emergency rooms the cost of an emergency room visit in Connecticut has risen from $750 four years ago to $1,100 today - that is an  unsustainable rate of increase.  Malloy stated that he would investigate establishing clinics that are staffed and run by the state in areas that are poorly served medically and do not have ready access to hospitals.  He is also an advocate of more preventive care and believed that much of this could be carried out by well trained Physicians Assistants.   

In closing Malloy said that unlike Rell, he “would not be leaving federal dollars on the table for health care,” and felt that Rell had been negligent in not working to obtain all the health care funding for which the state is eligible. President Obama has inherited probably the most complex set of crises of any past president, Malloy said and in order to best serve the needs of this state the President needs a constructive – not an obstructive - relationship with Connecticut’s Governor.

 
Ned Lamont Speaks at Fairfield County DFA

Economics and Elections –

Ned Lamont tells it like it is!

Kim Hymes from Common Cause opened the meeting with an update on the Citizen’s Election Program

Briefly, this program enables candidates with inadequate financing to run for State office in Connecticut by supplying state funding after the candidate has raised a specific amount from voters in the prospective candidate’s district. This enables working ordinary working people to run for office.

In 2005, the Governor and legislative leaders created the groundbreaking Citizens Election fund which eliminates the improper influence of special interest money in State elections. Connecticut’s Clean Election program is an unquestioned success and a model for the country. 75% of those who ran in 2008 elections participated in the Citizen’s Election program – Democrats, Republicans and third party candidates.

In spite of the program’s success in helping candidates run for office, Governor Rell’s recent budget proposal strips well over $35 million from the fund over the course of the next two years. This will, in effect, render the program ineffective and prevent people from running for statewide and General Assembly races in the 2010 - 2012 election cycles.

Jodi Rell also proposes repealing CGS Section 9-7c, which prohibits a Governor from modifying the budgets of the three watchdog agencies that ensure fair elections and open and responsible government. We must protect them now and in the future from any possible potential retribution by the Governor.

Please tell your state Representatives, Senators and the Governor that those representing us should not be beholden to the big money of corporate interests. Letters to the editor are also a great help and Kim asked that we all write to our local newspapers on this issue.

The Governor’s number and contact:

Greater Hartford Area: 860-566-4840 Toll Free: 800-406-1527
e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Kim Hynes e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Ned Lamont began by stating that the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions have played a considerable part in the budget meltdown. Despite the predictions that the costs of the war and occupation would be paid for by Iraq itself, the cost to the United States has been approximately $1 trillion [Stiglitz has quoted $3 trillion] so far, with no appreciable benefit for the American people. The cost in human death, misery and suffering is beyond imagining.

The idea that “the surge” was responsible for the lowered evidence of violence is a myth generated largely by the Republican spin machine. It wasn’t more troops that changed the course of the conflict; it was paying the local tribal chiefs to work against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda was never present in Iraq before the invasion because its ideology was diametrically opposed by the ruling Sunnis.

The illegal US invasion created the ideal conditions for Al-Qaeda to function as an anti-invasion force by fuelling hatred. Once Al Qaeda became a liability for the Iraqi chiefs they were more than happy to be paid to get rid of this radical group! Now Al Qaeda operates in Pakistan and is even more dangerous.

As for Afghanistan Ned said, sending in 17,000 more troops will change nothing. He reminded us that the Russians had 160,000 troops there in 1990. Not only was Russia unable to win a war with Afghanistan (neither were the Turks, the French, or the British!) their final defeat brought down the Communist USSR.

Afghanistan does pose a different problem from Iraq. Unlike Iraq, the conflict in Afghanistan is supported by NATO and while Iraq’s biggest resource is oil, Afghanistan’s biggest export – by far – is opium. Because opium is the major source of income, the efforts of the U.S. and NATO should be focused on creating a credible means by which Afghans can sustain their economy. Ned – as he has before – reiterated that the dynamics in both Afghanistan and Iraq need to change from destruction to construction or all parties in the conflicts loose.

On Iran, Ned stated that it does indeed propose a threat to the entire region if it is allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Ned believes that the Obama administration wishes to avoid any kind of armed confrontation with Iran and that the President will make strong diplomatic efforts to broker an agreement that will acknowledge Iran’s sovereignty and at the same time ensure that Iran will not produce nuclear weapons.

The world is indeed dangerous, but the worst enemy Ned said, is right here at home! Americans are addicted to debt and what we have done is to put the fox in the chicken house by asking financial institutions to regulate themselves rather than adhere to regulations that were already in place. Those regulations kept the greed of insurance, mortgage and financial institutions in check however, once those regulations were no longer enforced, human avarice and self-interest took over.

The initial stimulus package was designed to get the banks lending money so that businesses – particularly small businesses – would have the capital financing to function. Obviously, this has not happened. And as each business fails the business that supplies them fails also.

The U.S. and indeed the world, is now faced with the consequences of spending more than we earn. In particular, the United States must take a long hard look at itself and how it is going to allocate the stimulus money in order to get “the best bang for the buck.”

Obviously issuing rebates and upper income tax cuts a la Bush won’t do the trick. The stimulus has to be big, focused on creating jobs, repairing our infrastructure and fixing our inadequate healthcare system.

Aside from the obvious costs of wars and expensive no bid contracts for Bush era cronies, the derivatives market has become so complex that, at this point, no one even knows where all that money is – let alone how to redress the problems associated with mortgage and other loans.

Arguments about whether the Stimulus Package should be $840B or $800B nibble around the edges of solving the budget problem and are a mere subterfuge to hide the fact that at this point government is the only solution. For example, Governor Rell wants to turn off lights and limit other quite minor expenditures (such as the Citizen’s Election Program!) when what is needed is basic reorganization and reallocation of the State’s budget. Likewise, raiding Connecticut’s “Rainy Day” fund will provide only temporary relief and will not address the basic financial problems.

Ned was blunt about the fact that none of the budget fixes will be painless. We’ll need to increase taxes and cut programs that are either inefficient, outdated or that do not provide the most benefit to the largest number of Connecticut citizens. At the moment, Ned remarked, both the Governor and the State Legislature are short on offering those viable but painful, solutions. Early retirement packages, attrition, wage freezes, layoffs and increased taxes will undoubtedly play their part in easing the budget crunch. It is imperative that Connecticut begins the work of tax and labor reform and what we need is a cohesive and strategic business plan that integrates all elements of the State’s economy.

There is no panacea to solve our current problems. Hard decisions must be made that employ every available option to balance the state budget but at the same time we must do everything possible to protect the most vulnerable among us and lay the foundation for long-term economic stability. But while we work toward our long-term goals, we must also meet the challenge of an immediate fiscal crisis.

In order to achieve these goals no option can be removed from the table. Balanced budget builders cannot start with presumptions that there will be no service cuts, no layoffs, no revenue increases, no payroll modifications or no diminution of the budget reserve fund.

What the legislature must do, Ned said, is to balance a combination of relatively equal contributions in each of three major fiscal areas. The overall shortfall in Connecticut’s budget is $2.1 billion. In order to regain fiscal stability Connecticut will need to make cuts in projected appropriated spending of about $700 million in both 2010 and 2011

In addition to these budget cuts, difficult reductions in existing tax exemptions and tax credits such as those for filmmakers, corporations and mixed-use historic structures, totaling $700 million or more will need to be found. Increasing other taxes and fees, for example, a sales/use tax on Internet sales, an increase in the gas tax and a tax on snacks and junk food, totaling about $700 million will be necessary in order to rescue the downward spiral of our economy.

While Connecticut has some unique economic difficulties, it also has unique opportunities to overcome these problems. Ned noted that Connecticut has one of the highest property tax rates in the country an important factor that drives young people from the State, they simply cannot afford to buy, or even rent, housing. As in-State jobs become more difficult to find, young people have yet another incentive to move to less expensive States. While many older people move away – again because of higher property taxes – we still have the largest population of seniors in the U.S.

In addition, for every dollar Connecticut sends to the Federal Government the State receives a mere 69 cents in return. Much of the remaining 31 cents goes to relatively poor (and largely Republican!) States such as Alaska, Mississippi and Arkansas.

Despite the difficulties that Connecticut is experiencing Ned concluded on an optimistic note.

We are one of the most progressive states in the nation in terms of education. Our healthcare system, though not perfect, is still superior and we have the best scientific precision instrument industry in the country.

Our large senior population requires services and care, providing another opening for job training and creation. We are in the forefront in espousing a green economy – an important industry because green jobs – such as solar and wind energy or retrofit insulation - cannot be exported. The opportunities for entrepreneurs, for small businesses are there – we just have reinvent that American get-up-and-go spirit to take advantage of them. And, yes, we can!

Connecticut must invest in training and education in order to build a competitive economy that is fully competitive in the global marketplace. During the coming years, we must emphasize investment in the pillars undergirding that competitiveness: innovation, human capital, infrastructure and factors that improve the quality of life such as healthcare, education and clean air and water. Our state must be encouraged by active citizen participation develop a strategic plan to makes that vision a reality.

 
Why we need Single-Payer Healthcare

DFA was delighted to have Laura Boylan, MD, a member of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) talk to us about Single-Payer National Health Insurance at our February 1st DFA meet up.

(Though this report on her presentation and the Q & A session that followed is long, it is very comprehensive. It should help dispel any doubts about the necessity and viability of a National Healthcare Program and answer the most frequently asked questions about a single-payer Healthcare System.)

When 50% of bankruptcies in this country are due to exorbitant - but life-saving - healthcare costs and at least a third of those in need fail to seek medical care because of its cost, it is time to reexamine the healthcare delivery system. As our speaker Dr. Laura Boylan (a neurologist) noted at the start of her presentation, fixing the healthcare system of this country is now more important and urgent than ever as we face the current financial crisis.

Dr. Boylan began by outlining what a single payer system entails, and examined the arguments for and against a single-payer national health insurance program. The present trend is to pitch reform as a provision of access to insurance rather than an access to care. It is erroneous to believe that covering the 15% of uninsured will solve our healthcare cost problem. Dr. Boylan showed a rather frightening graph that predicted that average healthcare costs would exceed average income by the year 2025!

A single-payer healthcare program is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but Dr Boylan emphasized that delivery of healthcare remains largely private.

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Most other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 47 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The United States spends more and gets less than the rest of the world because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits, exorbitant executive compensation and perks. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with massive paperwork, healthcare denials and other bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, long-term care, mental health, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO/ group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing. Any new taxes would be offset by not having to pay any private health insurance.


Because the US healthcare system is so complex (in total it comprises one seventh of the nation’s economy) any reform is a daunting task. What we do know is that the present multi-tiered for-profit system is inefficient, inadequate and expensive to run. Although market-based strategies to contain costs, increase access or improve care have largely failed, powerful stakeholders in the medical marketplace are still trying to distort the issues with phony “policy research” in order to protect their financial interests.1

After her presentation Dr. Boylan answered questions from the audience that explained PNHP’s stance or opinion on each of these issues. A sample of the questions Dr. Boylan’s was asked (along with some taken from PNHP’s Website) follows. (click on "read more")You can also find lots more information about single-payer healthcare on PNHP’s website at: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

Read more...
 
Welcome to Democracy for Connecticut
Are you tired of just talking back to the radio or TV about our state and federal government's inequity and ineptitude?

Are you concerned about funding public education, accessible and affordable healthcare for everyone, safeguarding our environment and protecting your right to vote?

Do you want to have a dramatic effect on the way you and your family are governed in Connecticut?

Democracy for Connecticut will give you the tools and support your need to affect positive change RIGHT NOW!
Read more...
 

Member Login