|
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.
|
