Monday, July 31, 2006

DeStefano Dissent

In the gubernatorial primary Democrats must make a difficult decision. Both Dan Malloy and John DeStefano are talented men who have a lot to offer to both Connecticut and the Democratic Party. However, when it comes to the issues and values that matter most to Democratic voters John DeStefano is the best candidate to challenge Jodi Rell in November.

DeStefano has an inspired view of how government can better meet the needs of its citizens. He understands the urgent need for universal healthcare, a minimum wage that better reflects the cost of living, and the importance of job creation. His AFL-CIO and numerous other union endorsements speak to his commitment workers' rights.

The needs of Connecticut families are a priority for John DeStefano. On education DeStefano supports universal early education, magnet schools, and revising the state's formula for distributing aid. While both candidates have plans for tax reform DeStefano offers the more ambitious overhaul including a property tax freeze for seniors, and a more progressive form of taxing income. He is also the only candidate brave enough to tackle the problem of pay equity rather than simply paying lip service to it.

If at first DeStefano seems vague when it comes to details that's only because he has a more realistic understanding of governance. It is one thing to release glossy campaign materials with sky high promises, and quite another to turn those initiatives into policy and law. John DeStefano has a keen understanding of government as a process rather than a press release.

John DeStefano offers a positive vision of Connecticut's future which is in sharp contrast to the status quo policies offered by Jodi Rell and her predecessor. Looking towards November there is no better candidate to articulate the need for change. That is why we dissent from the majority and endorse John DeStefano for the Democratic nomination for Governor.

17 comments:

BRubenstein said...

Good job CGG...i couldnt agree more

Goon Squad said...

He is also the only candidate brave enough to tackle the problem of pay equity rather than simply paying lip service it.

If he's brave enough to tackle the problem, he should also be brave enough to identify how much his program will cost AND the revenue stream he will generate to fund its cost.

If a program that doesnt identify costs or funding isnt the very definition of lip service, i dont know what is.

But dont just take my word for it. Please review the plan for yourself and tell me how much its going to COST and how he's going to PAY for it.

http://www.destefanoforct.com/content.jsp?content_KEY=1498

bluecoat said...

I am not sure pay equity is a real problem that needs to be solved but if it is the cost to correct it is irrelevant; the problem with JDS is that he doesn't sell the used car the way Malloy does; if he gets the nod from the Democrats he needs to tell us how he will accomplish evrything and how he will do it while lowering taxes; I was somewhat shocked to read in the stamford advocate endorsement that JDS thinks ConnDOT is understaffed when the probelme is they are incompetently staffed; CT govt. is bloated and poorly run; he might want to take a swipe at CT's IT stuff becasue it is a costly disaster lkie most things Johnny left around.

Goon Squad said...

I am not sure pay equity is a real problem that needs to be solved but if it is the cost to correct it is irrelevant

So the cost of Government programs is now irrelevent?!?

Jesus, you must work in the in the Bush White House.

Goon Squad said...

^

excuse the multiple spelling mistakes.

I was so blown away by absurdity of Bluecoats point that I briefly lost my mind.

bluecoat said...

the point is that you don't not fix an inequity because fixing it would cost too much; there are plenty of non-governemt projects that could be done away with to pay for such a program - like renovating a theater - but like I said I am not sure it's a real problem that needs to be solved by govt. anymore than I am sure the govt. needs to renovate old theaters.

Goon Squad said...

^

I completly agree with Mayor DeStefano that pay equity is a very important issue that must be dealt with.

I also agree with you (!) in your point that "you don't not fix an inequity because fixing it would cost too much".

I could really care less how much its going to cost. The point is, a responsible and cost-effective government lays out in clear, simple, terms how much it thinks a program will cost, and how it plans on funding that cost.

I never said it should'nt be dealt with because it would cost too much.

What I did say was "how much WILL it cost? How WILL you fund it?"

My question's are not answered by reading Mayor DeStefano's plan.

Not a very responsible policy approach if you ask me.

GMR said...

The pay equity thing of DeStefano's is absurd.

Yes, women, on average, make $0.72 or $0.75 or whatever for every $1.00 than men make. However, this is because women tend to be overrepresented in certain professions. Within a given profession, after adjusting for education and experience, the gap goes away.

What Pay Equity seeks to do is to match predominately female jobs with predominately male jobs. For instance, a government board determines that a plumber and a nursing assistant are similar. Then they say that if you pay nursing assistants less than plumbers, you are not paying enough and therefore need to pay more.

So there's going to be a whole army of bureaucrats trying to match jobs that are unrelated except that in the bureaucrat's minds, they're equally difficult.

Right now, salaries are determined by the market. If there's a shortage of plumbers, then a plumbing company will have to raise the wages it pays to plumbers. It'll then attract enough plumbers. People that don't do plumbing will learn how and enter the field once wages become lucrative.

Pay Equity is a complete market distortion. Wages would no longer be set by the law of supply and demand, but instead by government fiat. It would essentially be controls on what you could pay employees. Well, some jobs would be market-based, but others would be set by decree.

bluecoat said...

Goonie: Malloy hasn't told us how he's going to pay for his 1000 additional cops - he hasn't convinced me we need them iether BTW. And if you follow me through all this I just want to know how any of them are going to cut taxes and improve services but I'd just be happy to hear any of them acknowledge such a thing can be done becasue all three have records of increasing taxes - and I know that becasue i saw nacy Johnsaon's ad thta says Chris Murphy voted to raise taxes and I know rell signed off on all of those vote. Try Picking on the politicians since I am not running for office this year.

Goon Squad said...

^

Sorry if I came off as a bully. They was certainly not my intention.

But to keep the conversation going:

I just want to know how any of them are going to cut taxes and improve services

Whover the next Governor is, is going to walk into office on Day with with a surplus of close to $1 Billion. Start there.

all three have records of increasing taxes

Dan Malloy's administration has actually increased taxes at a lower rate than inflation over the last 5 years.

It has increased, but in an way that is controlled and scrutinized to the extreme.

bluecoat said...

I didn't think you were a bully, but using the surplus to cut taxes isn't doing anything to lower the cost of government. No, i won't start with the surplus - it should either be sent back to those who overpaid or used to pay down the debt that we taciltly allowed these bozos to build up under rowland/rell/sullivan/lyons/williams/ammann. Here's on old suggestion:it's ridiculous that virtually every state cop gets his or her cruiser with lights, sirens, computer, radio and all that crap to use on and off the job. They can drive to work like the rest of us - or take the train - and get their car at roll call and turn it in at the end of the shift. That will save money. And there are a thousnad of those knds of things that can be put in place.

Derby Conservative said...

Great plans...pie in the sky anyway. I'd love to see universal healthcare and pay equity, but how do you justify the expense and resultant taxes that will come along with these programs. It would be nice to tax millionaires and businesses, but enact these programs, and businesses will flee Connecticut in droves so much so that there won't be enough millionaires on the Gold Coast to fund the State Police, let alone these programs.

Then again, noe of this matters. Whoever has the fortune of winnign next Tuesday will only be a lamb led to the slaughter in November.

bluecoat said...

DC: we don't need any more state cops on the Gold Coast, we just need to get them out of the diners, dougnutshops, construction sites and their barracks to do the job they are supposed to do. You may not know that 82 of the municipalities in CT don't have municipal PD's like Derby funds through your property tax; these municipalities, like Oxford, rely on CSP for services throughh the Resident Trooper program - the municipaliteis do kick in a little for the cost but much of it is paid for out of the general fund that we all kick in to - it ain't right!!!

bluecoat said...

Oh, and DC: since you would love to see universal healthcre would you explain what that is to me; as far as I can tell it's health services paid for by anybody other than the actual consumer of those services

Chris MC said...

Sorry about the cross-posting, but the two threads are intertwined.

Saying JD is the better choice because he offers a greater contrast is just about as weak an argument as saying "well, he was never actually indicted".

What next? Fidel Castro would be an ideal candidate for the Democratic party because of the enormous contrast? Being unelectable is not a rationale for the Party's nomination.

Perhaps the most telling thing uttered on that point was posted by inveterate JD supporter and erstwhile "political operative" BRubenstein (if that is in fact his real name). You remember, don't you?
BRubenstein said...
[snip]
...for 2 years in the race [JDS] hasn't yet thought of a way to [bring Rell's popularity numbers down] and I doubt he will in the remaining few months.
10:51 AM, July 20, 2006


Why vote for a man in the primary who has no shot in the General? It defies common sense.

Vote Malloy for Governor!

Anonymous said...

Destefano,Slifka,Lamont Line B for Bad for Connecticut!!!!!!

LINE A ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!

CTRevolution said...

The largest union labor in Fairfield county, representing super market workers endorsed DeStefano proving again that DeStefano is the man the working man supports. He's not going to cut the taxes of the rich(Dan Malloy-estate taxes), he's going to help the person who goes home everday to higher energy bills, higher gas prices, higher property taxes, higher medical costs. That's what this election is about and that's why DeStefano will beat Malloy.