The Connecticut Campaign Trail
As far as Connecticut's state legislature is considered, I live in the 2nd
district. With the retirement of 2-term incumbent, Hank Bielawa (R), an
opportunity is at hand for a new face to represent the district.
The Republican candidate is Phil Gallagher. From what I read about him on his
website (2011 Update: No longer exists), he seems like he comes from the
same mold as his predecessor. Not that that's a bad thing. In Connecticut,
Republicans still pay lip service to fiscal conservatism, unlike their brethren
in D.C. He's a long term resident of the area, who's served in town government,
and is a retired teacher.
The Democratic candidate is Jason Bartlett, a local businessman who ran twice
against Bielawa and lost. The second time the margin was only 80 votes.
Recently, there was a letter to the editor in which someone praised him for
various reasons, pertaining to character and leadership skills. But then the
writer went negative on Gallagher saying that he'll "accomplish little in
Hartford because he is a member of the minority and he does not work well with
others." While I have no idea if the latter is true, being a member of the
minority party is hardly an argument one can use here. Does the author plan on
voting for Nancy Johnson, a Republican, to be our rep in Congress because hers
is the party of the majority? Somehow, I don't think so.
Bartlett has also enjoyed the support of the local education factions. This
troubles me as these groups use fear tactics to push their causes. It's always,
"Our children will suffer if the budget doesn't pass." And when budgets don't
pass, they never cut the administrative part of the school budget. Nor do they
seek alternative sources of revenue. It's always property tax increases. And
since I'm paying $5400/year on my house (a raised ranch, nothing special), I'm
sick of it.
I got to meet Bartlett one Saturday afternoon. He was going door-to-door trying
to drum up support. I don't know if the Democratic party hasn't got its act
together or what but all I see are Republican signs. I know my part of the state
leans to the right but this is something more. I'm not seeing any
Democrat signs and I know that there are plenty of them in this town.
Anyway, he was all alone so I got to pick his brain on two local issues:
property taxes and rampant increases in health insurance costs (did you notice
that healthcare stocks are up over 600% since 2000). I asked if he had any ideas
for finding new sources of tax revenue for the town, like encouraging more
businesses to move in and shoulder some of the burden (When Duracell was here,
that's how they managed it). He talked about incentives for businesses to move
in to the industrial park.
I'm not so sure that there's going to be enough tax revenue to come in from
businesses. I'm thinking that the schools are going to need corporate sponsors.
If they can do it for sports stadiums why not schools? "Bethel-United
Technologies High School"? Maybe it won't work, but I think that we need to
start discussing this now.
As for health insurance, he foresaw CT adopting a plan similar to what
Massachusettes enacted. He also rolled off importing prescription drugs from
Canada and investing in Federal Qualified Health Clinics, which are federally
subsidized.
I'm not familiar with the Mass plan so I can't say whether or not this is a good
idea. Something drastic needs to be done. My wife works in HR so I hear all
the time about rates going up. It doesn't matter whether it's a big company or
small company, they're getting screwed because the health insurance companies
care more about shareholder value than the people they insure. And I used to
work for Oxford Health Plans so I have some experience here. Forgive me for
sounding like a socialist, but this is a situation where capitalism seems to be
failing. I don't know how many tens of millions of Americans don't have
insurance, but the mere fact that one can say "millions" here speaks volumes.
How can the wealthiest nation on the planet function this way?
Jason Bartlett didn't strike me as a politician. There was no greasy smile or
robotic repetition of sound bites. And he didn't look like he was putting on an
act. Amazingly enough, he's a human being. I wish him well either way.
I haven't met Gallagher so I don't know what he's like. On the issues, he comes
across (through his website) as a reasonable constitutional and fiscal
conservative. Keep in mind that Connecticut is a blue state, our Republicans
have to be moderate if they want to have a shot at winning an election.
I haven't decided which of these guys I'm going to vote for. The Democratic
controlled legislature is too far to the left for my taste. We have a state
income tax, a sales tax, high property taxes (homes and cars), and the highest
gasoline tax in the country, but yet keeping the budget in the black remains a
problem. The interstates are gridlocked. We've got big defense contractors and
major financial and insurance companies here so why can't we come up with the
money? It's high time that the state's incomes and expenditures be examined to
find out what's gone wrong.
\_/
DED
5 Comments:
 Mike said...-
Tough choice ahead, Ded.
By the way, never heard the corporate
sponsorship of schools plan before. Interesting. What's the incentive for the
companies? Advertising with the children? Product placements?
I'd like
to hear more on this.
- 10/04/2006 5:32 AM
 DED said...-
A combination of things. Product placement would be a big part of it. Coke
and Pepsi already have machines in the cafeterias. Computer manufacturers and
software companies can donate product which the students may influence their
parents to buy or they'll buy themselves when they're adults. Wireless companies
(both hardware and access providers) can get in on the act. Chalkboards can be
branded with corporate logos. You can have the Dupont or Merck science wing. I
think that there's great potential here. I despise advertizing, having worked
for an internet advertizing agency, but it's a fact of life. It's everywhere, so
why not get something out of it while we're at it?
Besides brand awareness, companies might actually be nurturing the education of
future employees. "Hey, Johnson and Johnson sponsored my chem lab, maybe they'd
be cool to go work for."
I think that it would be safe on the high school level. Kids at this age are
already pretty savvy when it comes to advertizing. Junior high might be safe. I
don't know about Elementary school. Their minds might still be too
impressionable, but perhaps a compromise could be reached.
- 10/04/2006 11:00 AM
- Alan P. said...
-
Instead of just taxing petrofuel, maybe they should consider this.
The attached study by the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis at the
University of Connecticut reveals:
By switching to biodiesel for home heating and in on-road and off-road
heavy duty vehicles, Connecticut saves at least $20 million in averted health
care costs; these savings increase as the price difference between biodiesel and
conventional diesel narrows;
Connecticut can preserve green space and put idle farmland to productive
use to build its heating oil reserve with biodiesel;
Connecticut can use biodiesel mixed with the newly mandated low-sulfur
petro fuels to increase lubricity and cleanliness in diesel engines;
Connecticut's neighbors (particularly Rhode Island) use biodiesel in school
buses and school heating systems to reduce (cancer-causing and respiratory
illness-causing) pollutants where children are present;
The University of Connecticut uses recycled cooking oil to power a shuttle
bus;
Biodiesel has physical and chemical properties that make it desirable for
use in transportation, home heating and power generation (low toxicity, highly
decomposable, high flash point, high lubricity and low pollution (for example,
no sulfur dioxide that leads to acid rain and almost half as much particulate
matter); and,
Biodiesel is four times more efficient than diesel fuel in utilizing fossil
energy, that is, it releases more energy than it consumes in its production
relative to conventional diesel that requires more energy to produce than it
yields.
http://ccea.uconn.edu/studies/Biodiesel%20Report.pdf
- 10/05/2006 12:31 PM
- DED said...
-
Thanks, Mort. I agree with you in principle, but this is all intangible
benefits. It's not to say that I don't think it should be done, it should. But
understanding the way things go here...
The $20 million in averted health care costs is intangible and won't do anything
to ameliorate the current fiscal situation.
I wasn't aware CT had any idle farmland left. Really. All the open
farmland from 20 years ago has been converted to parks or sold to housing
developers. Perhaps in the Eastern half of the state.
None of the other things listed had any tangible fiscal benefits either. While
the health aspects are commendable, and reason enough alone to adopt, it will
have no effect on the budget dilemmas facing the state and its cities and
towns.
- 10/05/2006 5:49 PM
- Alan P. said...
The problems run deep, no doubt. - 10/05/2006 6:48 PM
<< Home |
