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, 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
The Republican candidate is Phil Gallagher. From what I read about him on his website, 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
Labels: politics
posted by DED at 6:27 PM
5 Comments:
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.
A combination of things. Product placement would be a big part of it. Coke and Pepsi already have machines in the cafeteria's. 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.
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
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.
The problems run deep, no doubt.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home