Connecticut Local Politics is officially moving to its new site, located at www.ctlocalpolitics.net, as of today, Wednesday, January 17th, 2007. This is the final new post that will be made on the current Blogger-powered site, as we are moving on to a new host and to new blogging software (WordPress).
The site you are reading now will continue to exist as an archive, but all new posts will be made at the new site. Please update your bookmarks to:
Please update RSS feeds to:
ATOM: http://ctlocalpolitics.net/feed/atom/
RSS .92: http://ctlocalpolitics.net/feed/rss/
RSS 2.0: http://ctlocalpolitics.net/feed/
Comment Feed: http://ctlocalpolitics.net/comments/feed/
Thanks to everyone for their participation in this site, and I hope you will join us at our new URL for more of the same quality content you've come to expect from Connecticut Local Politics.
Thanks especially to the Sunlight Foundation for providing the grant that made this move possible.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Second Anniversary
(Cross posted at the new site--comment here or there)
Hard to believe, but it's been exactly two years since I put up the first post on this site.
It's fitting, then, that we migrate to our new site today.
Thank you everyone who has stuck by this site over the past two years. I've gone places and done things I never imagined, and I've met many, many incredible people. Thanks especially to those who have contributed to the site, either here on the front page or in the comments. I'd just be talking to myself without you.
I can't wait to see where the next year takes us.
Hard to believe, but it's been exactly two years since I put up the first post on this site.
It's fitting, then, that we migrate to our new site today.
Thank you everyone who has stuck by this site over the past two years. I've gone places and done things I never imagined, and I've met many, many incredible people. Thanks especially to those who have contributed to the site, either here on the front page or in the comments. I'd just be talking to myself without you.
I can't wait to see where the next year takes us.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
May Elections: Nominating Conventions This Week
Political parties in towns that have elections this May are holding nominating conventions this week and next to determine their slates. All endorsements must be certified by town or city clerks by 4:00pm on Tuesday, January 23rd.
Towns with elections on May 7th, 2007:
Andover
Bolton
Bethany
Naugatuck
Woodbridge
Union
There are also May 7th elections in the following boroughs (parent town in parentheses):
Bantam (Litchfield)
Danielson (Killingly)
Fenwick (Old Saybrook)
Groton City (Groton)
Jewett City (Griswold)
Litchfield (Litchfield)
Newtown (Newtown)
Stonington (Stonington)
Woodmont (Milford)
Primaries, if there are to be any, will be held on Monday, March 12th.
(more information can be found on the Secretary of the State's website)
Towns with elections on May 7th, 2007:
Andover
Bolton
Bethany
Naugatuck
Woodbridge
Union
There are also May 7th elections in the following boroughs (parent town in parentheses):
Bantam (Litchfield)
Danielson (Killingly)
Fenwick (Old Saybrook)
Groton City (Groton)
Jewett City (Griswold)
Litchfield (Litchfield)
Newtown (Newtown)
Stonington (Stonington)
Woodmont (Milford)
Primaries, if there are to be any, will be held on Monday, March 12th.
(more information can be found on the Secretary of the State's website)
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Open Forum
I've been busy over at the new site. Go check out the updates, or chat on the forum.
What else is happening this weekend?
What else is happening this weekend?
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Possible Downtime Saturday, Sunday
I'll be moving files over to the new site (http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net) on Saturday and Sunday. I will try to do this during low-traffic periods, but be aware that there may be some downtime.
If this site goes down, come on over to the new site or to the new forum for news and chatter.
If this site goes down, come on over to the new site or to the new forum for news and chatter.
Pay Raise Possible for Legislative Leaders
Here's a sure-to-be-popular idea:
At least one leader, Speaker Amann, seems opposed to the idea, although Amann's spokesman did say he might be interested in "a modest, across-the-board increase for all legislators."
Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca disagreed:
I think all legislators, including the leaders, should have a raise in their pay. Here's why:
There's something to be said for the ideal of the citizen-legislator, who works a regular job and has a life outside the Capitol. This model made sense a century ago., but I don't believe it does now.
Public financing of campaigns will help to open the General Assembly to people who wouldn't otherwise consider running. A better wage for legislators would help to open it even further.
What do you think?
Source
"A Collection of Briefs From the State Capitol." Associated Press 12 January, 2007.
The independent Commission on Compensation of Elected State Officials and State Judges is studying the possibility of better compensation for legislative leaders.
The board's chairman, Lewis. B. Rome, said that while the legislature is a part-time entity, the top leaders essentially hold full-time jobs, the Republican-American of Waterbury reported.
Rome said there is a big discrepancy between the workload of leaders and other lawmakers. (AP)
At least one leader, Speaker Amann, seems opposed to the idea, although Amann's spokesman did say he might be interested in "a modest, across-the-board increase for all legislators."
Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca disagreed:
"I don't think there should be a pay increase for anybody," Senate Minority Leader Louis C. DeLuca, R-Woodbury, said. "If we are going to have a part-time legislature, we have to keep the pay commensurate with a part-time legislature." (AP)
I think all legislators, including the leaders, should have a raise in their pay. Here's why:
- The legislature is becoming less and less part time. There have been special sessions almost every year for a long time, and the legislature is certainly more than a full-time pursuit when it's in session.
- Find me a job, other than lawyer, which allows its employees to be gone for half of the year, not to mention extras like hearings, special sessions and campaigning. There are very few--and almost none of them are jobs that most middle-class people have.
- $28,000 is not enough to live on if being a legislator is one's only career.
- Therefore, it's no wonder the General Assembly is thick with lawyers and members of the upper class. I couldn't afford to be a member, and neither could a lot of others.
There's something to be said for the ideal of the citizen-legislator, who works a regular job and has a life outside the Capitol. This model made sense a century ago., but I don't believe it does now.
Public financing of campaigns will help to open the General Assembly to people who wouldn't otherwise consider running. A better wage for legislators would help to open it even further.
What do you think?
Source
"A Collection of Briefs From the State Capitol." Associated Press 12 January, 2007.
SOTS Agenda: Election Security
The Secretary of the State's office has released its legislative agenda:
That last one matters. Joe Lieberman could file to run as an independent the day after the primary--the new rule would move the filing deadline back to a month before the primary, which is where it was before the primary was moved to August.
The audits are a good idea, as is the code of ethics.
And sign me up for a political "do not call" list! I swear, if I never hear Bill Clinton coming out of my answering machine again, I'll be very happy.
Source
Phaneuf, Keith. "Secretary of the state would make Conn. national model for election security." Journal-Inquirer 12 January, 2007.
Hoping to make Connecticut a national model for safe elections, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz unveiled a proposal this week calling for mandatory annual audits of one-fifth of all polling places.
Other pieces of Bysiewicz's 2007 legislative agenda include:
* Requiring all cities and towns to adopt a municipal code of ethics.
* Creating a new "do-not-call" list for households that don't want to receive automated telephone calls containing political messages. The bill would make it illegal to place calls to such households, a system already in place in Connecticut to restrict commercial marketing calls.
* Returning the deadline for candidates looking to petition onto the state ballot without major-party affiliation to one month before the primaries. (Phaneuf)
That last one matters. Joe Lieberman could file to run as an independent the day after the primary--the new rule would move the filing deadline back to a month before the primary, which is where it was before the primary was moved to August.
The audits are a good idea, as is the code of ethics.
And sign me up for a political "do not call" list! I swear, if I never hear Bill Clinton coming out of my answering machine again, I'll be very happy.
Source
Phaneuf, Keith. "Secretary of the state would make Conn. national model for election security." Journal-Inquirer 12 January, 2007.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Legislative Updates
Some legislative ideas published recently by the Associated Press:
You may also be interested in a discussion held with Rep. Mike Lawlor, who is head of the Judiciary Committee, on My Left Nutmeg yesterday. A lot of the conversation is about the Krayeske situation, but Lawlor also talked about the search for the next Chief Justice and other issues.
- A penalty for not reporting lost or stolen guns, paired with a one-gun-per-month limit. These kind of seem like things you would charge someone with after they'd shot someone else.
- A bill that would allow "any member of the State Bond Commission to put funding requests on the agenda for action", which may seem dull. However, the governor currently controls the agenda, causing Republicans to accuse Democrats of a power grab. This is the type of bill that Jodi Rell will veto--and the Democrats will not override.
You may also be interested in a discussion held with Rep. Mike Lawlor, who is head of the Judiciary Committee, on My Left Nutmeg yesterday. A lot of the conversation is about the Krayeske situation, but Lawlor also talked about the search for the next Chief Justice and other issues.
A Reader Note on Interfering with an Officer
The following comment came in via email from reader CG (edit for format only):
The statute in question, Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-167a, is available here.
The decision in State v. Aloi is available here.
So, what do you think?
All this talk about Ken Krayeske’s recent arrest for interfering with a police officer and breach of peace got me thinking about what, exactly, it means to interfere with the police.
In a Hartford Courant article that you may have missed right before the holidays, Lynne Tuouhy wrote about a recent unanimous Connecticut Supreme Court decision that allows any person who peacefully refuses to show identification to a police officer to be arrested for interfering with an officer. The law, which is Connecticut Statute 53a-167a states that Interfering with an officer is a Class A Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in prison). A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when, “such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer’s, special policeman’s or firefighter’s duties.”
The Connecticut Supreme Court last week reversed a unanimous Appellate Court decision and declared that peacefully existing on public property and simply refusing to show identification is either obstruction, resistance or hindrance punishable by up to a year in prison. I’m not sure which colorful verb they believe it falls under! The case, State v. Aloi, centered around a man who was suspiciously standing near a fire truck on public property near his home. Granted, he had been in legal trouble before for messing with the fire truck, which created loud noise and was a nuisance near his home, yet the precedent set by this case is somewhat startling.
I’m not sure exactly what this information adds to the conversation over Mr. Krayeske’s arrest, but I thought it might be interesting for your readers to know just exactly how easy it is to be arrested for interfering with an officer. I know that many “known protestors” visit your site regularly, so they may want to know that apparently doing anything contrary to exactly what you are told to do by a police officer anywhere in Connecticut is able to land you in jail, if not just until the last glass of champagne is poured at the Governor’s ball, then possibly for up to one year.
The statute in question, Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-167a, is available here.
The decision in State v. Aloi is available here.
So, what do you think?
Dodd on the Run
So it's official.
Sen. Dodd announced his candidacy for president this morning on Imus in the Morning, which seems a strange place to launch a campaign from. Why, for example, didn't he do this in Connecticut?
He'll be heading to Iowa and South Carolina soon, there to tout his experience, his opposition to the Iraq War, and the fact that he's a nice guy who isn't Hillary Clinton. He will be relying on his affable, personable nature and strong talents as an orator to rise above the crowd there.
There's a website: ChrisDodd.com, with plenty of multimedia, plays on the word "Dodd" (for example, the Dodd Pod seems to be a collection of podcasts) and the obligatory campaign blog. There are already some issues posted, although a quick glance shows little that separates him from the rest of what is becoming a crowded field.
There's also money: about $5 million in the bank. That may be the only plus so far.
What there isn't, at least yet, is any kind of buzz about the campaign. Kevin Rennie called Dodd's bid a "busman's holiday of a campaign" and suggested that state Democrats were less than thrilled with it.
This will be the most difficult campaign Dodd has ever run. His chances, let's admit, are not good. Even Joe Lieberman began the last cycle in better position, and he ended up in a three way tie for third in New Hampshire. There's no evidence Dodd will fare much better than that.
Which begs the question: why is Dodd actually running? Is it, as Rennie suggests, simple vanity? Is he really running for Vice President, or for a Cabinet post in President Obama, Edwards or Clinton's administration? Or it could just be a nice way to cap a long and generally distinguished career.
Then again, maybe he actually believes that he can win.
In any event, our senior senator is now officially running for president. What's your reaction?
You can also go post about it in the forum.
Sen. Dodd announced his candidacy for president this morning on Imus in the Morning, which seems a strange place to launch a campaign from. Why, for example, didn't he do this in Connecticut?
He'll be heading to Iowa and South Carolina soon, there to tout his experience, his opposition to the Iraq War, and the fact that he's a nice guy who isn't Hillary Clinton. He will be relying on his affable, personable nature and strong talents as an orator to rise above the crowd there.
There's a website: ChrisDodd.com, with plenty of multimedia, plays on the word "Dodd" (for example, the Dodd Pod seems to be a collection of podcasts) and the obligatory campaign blog. There are already some issues posted, although a quick glance shows little that separates him from the rest of what is becoming a crowded field.
There's also money: about $5 million in the bank. That may be the only plus so far.
What there isn't, at least yet, is any kind of buzz about the campaign. Kevin Rennie called Dodd's bid a "busman's holiday of a campaign" and suggested that state Democrats were less than thrilled with it.
This will be the most difficult campaign Dodd has ever run. His chances, let's admit, are not good. Even Joe Lieberman began the last cycle in better position, and he ended up in a three way tie for third in New Hampshire. There's no evidence Dodd will fare much better than that.
Which begs the question: why is Dodd actually running? Is it, as Rennie suggests, simple vanity? Is he really running for Vice President, or for a Cabinet post in President Obama, Edwards or Clinton's administration? Or it could just be a nice way to cap a long and generally distinguished career.
Then again, maybe he actually believes that he can win.
In any event, our senior senator is now officially running for president. What's your reaction?
You can also go post about it in the forum.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
McCain Claims Lieberman's Victory Means America is Anti-Withdrawal
On MSNBC today, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain claimed that Senator Lieberman's defeat of Ned Lamont meant that the American people were against withdrawal:
TPM Election Central's Eric Kleefeld neatly rips this absurd argument to shreds (click through to read the whole thing and see the video of McCain making the claim):
What he said.
Joe Lieberman would never have been re-elected — a strong proponent of the war — against an opponent who was for pullout, if that was the American people's attitude.
TPM Election Central's Eric Kleefeld neatly rips this absurd argument to shreds (click through to read the whole thing and see the video of McCain making the claim):
First, let's take a look at Connecticut's exit polls. They show that sending more troops had the support of — get this — 15% of voters! Meanwhile, 63% of voters said some or even all troops should be withdrawn, in complete opposition to Lieberman's real position.
Second, given the total number of people who cast their vote for Lieberman, it's nothing short of absurd to say that it's in any way indicative of anything national. According to the final results, a total of 563,725 people voted for Lieberman — in other words, just over half a million in a nation of 300 million people.
Finally, Lieberman won because he was able to misrepresent his views on Iraq, not because voters agreed with his actual views on the subject. Back in July, Lieberman actually said he thought we'd be able to draw down "significant" numbers of troops by now. What's more, Lieberman worked hard to blur the line between himself and Ned Lamont on the Iraq issue. In one ad, for instance, he spoke of wanting to "bring our troops home from Iraq."
What he said.
Monstrous Concessions
Stan Simpson’s column today is already provoking a lot of outrage and talk around here today, and for good reason. Here’s the most relevant excerpt:
Security and safety are gods in America today--and they have been for a long time, even since before 9/11. We want safer cars, safer schools, safer food, safer air, safer everything, and we're willing to make monstrous concessions in order to get them. This is another.
What Stan is suggesting seems so reasonable. Yes, detain him. Search him. He could have been a threat. He might have embarrassed or hurt the governor. The security of the state's chief executive is paramount. He was a known activist, he didn't like the governor. His bag should have been searched, at the very least. It would have been okay to hold him until the police were "reassured."
We can rationalize this, and smother it with the numbing and comforting "what ifs" that Simpson provides, but a cold truth remains: Ken Krayeske was arrested because he said the wrong things to the wrong people, and in the wrong way.
The state police had his photo because of verbal confrontations between himself and the governor's staff, regarding his candidate's exclusion from the gubernatorial debates. This, in Simpson's words, "unsettled" the state police, and so they provided his photograph to Hartford's police, and the chain of events was set in motion.
A man was arrested and detained for hours because of what he said and what he wrote. He was made known to police because his tone of voice "unsettled" the state police. He never threatened the governor.
This is not okay.
People can rationalize just about anything, from strangers rifling through a woman's purse at the entrance to a ball game to "free speech zones" for protesters at political events to the arrest and detention of innocent men if they believe it will make things safer. If you find that fog clouding your judgement, if you start to think that giving up a little freedom for security now and then is fine, if you begin to forget that our entire country is one great big free speech zone, remember what happened to Ken.
Then imagine it happening to you.
Sources
Pazniokas, Mark. "Activist Arrested At Inauguration Parade." Hartford Courant 6 January, 2007.
Simpson, Stan. "Protecting Rell Serves Public, Too." Hartford Courant 10 January, 2007.
Inviting as it may be, I'm not joining the piling-on party. When it comes to securing the safety of the state's highest elected official, you err on the side of caution. No, Krayeske should not have been arrested, and yes, the charges should be dropped. But please don't suggest that the guy should not have been detained for a while, at least until the point police were assured he had no bad intentions. Certainly, they had a right to inspect the nylon bag he carried while running along the parade route to make certain there was nothing more dangerous than a digital camera.
[...]
I don't think Krayeske was considered a "threat" in the physical sense, but someone who may be inclined to try to publicly embarrass the governor on her big day.
His incident got a mention in Tuesday's New York Times. Just imagine the news coverage if someone really did slip by security and harm the 60-year-old grandma in her first elected term.
The headline: "Where Was Rell's Security?" (Simpson)
Security and safety are gods in America today--and they have been for a long time, even since before 9/11. We want safer cars, safer schools, safer food, safer air, safer everything, and we're willing to make monstrous concessions in order to get them. This is another.
What Stan is suggesting seems so reasonable. Yes, detain him. Search him. He could have been a threat. He might have embarrassed or hurt the governor. The security of the state's chief executive is paramount. He was a known activist, he didn't like the governor. His bag should have been searched, at the very least. It would have been okay to hold him until the police were "reassured."
We can rationalize this, and smother it with the numbing and comforting "what ifs" that Simpson provides, but a cold truth remains: Ken Krayeske was arrested because he said the wrong things to the wrong people, and in the wrong way.
Hartford Det. Jeff Antuna wrote in his report that Krayeske drew his attention by rapidly riding up to the parade route near Bushnell Park, dumping his bike and running to a position in front of Rell.
"I immediately recognized the accused as Kenneth Krayeske from the photograph provided by the state police," Antuna wrote. (Pazniokas)
The state police had his photo because of verbal confrontations between himself and the governor's staff, regarding his candidate's exclusion from the gubernatorial debates. This, in Simpson's words, "unsettled" the state police, and so they provided his photograph to Hartford's police, and the chain of events was set in motion.
A man was arrested and detained for hours because of what he said and what he wrote. He was made known to police because his tone of voice "unsettled" the state police. He never threatened the governor.
This is not okay.
People can rationalize just about anything, from strangers rifling through a woman's purse at the entrance to a ball game to "free speech zones" for protesters at political events to the arrest and detention of innocent men if they believe it will make things safer. If you find that fog clouding your judgement, if you start to think that giving up a little freedom for security now and then is fine, if you begin to forget that our entire country is one great big free speech zone, remember what happened to Ken.
Then imagine it happening to you.
Sources
Pazniokas, Mark. "Activist Arrested At Inauguration Parade." Hartford Courant 6 January, 2007.
Simpson, Stan. "Protecting Rell Serves Public, Too." Hartford Courant 10 January, 2007.
Early Morning Open Forum
Judiciary Chairman Mike Lawlor will be liveblogging tonight on My Left Nutmeg. SpazeBoy has his press conference from yesterday in four parts.
CT Bob has an interview with Rosa DeLauro.
Opponents of Broadwater speak out - and it looks like the New York Department of State has misgivings.
An interesting challenge to the constitutionality of the Death Penalty is brewing in Hartford.
Rabid Raccoons? Yes, rabid raccoons.
State Dems look to change bonding rules to end Governor's monopoly.
An economics Professor takes George Will's latest Courant column to task.
What else is going on?
CT Bob has an interview with Rosa DeLauro.
Opponents of Broadwater speak out - and it looks like the New York Department of State has misgivings.
An interesting challenge to the constitutionality of the Death Penalty is brewing in Hartford.
Rabid Raccoons? Yes, rabid raccoons.
State Dems look to change bonding rules to end Governor's monopoly.
An economics Professor takes George Will's latest Courant column to task.
What else is going on?
Hartford: Matthews Expected to Announce Today
From the Courant:
Others currently in the race are former State Rep. Frank Barrows and current State Rep. Art Feltman, both Democrats.
The consensus this year is that Perez has made a lot of enemies in Hartford, and he is seen, among other things, as power-hungry and out-of-touch with the residents of the city. He still remains a powerful force in Hartford, however, so it remains to be seen whether any of the current crop of challengers can take him down.
Above all of this is the quiet but persistent rumor that Denise Nappier might join the fray, although she hasn't said anything either way.
Source
Goren, Daniel. "Another Mayoral Candidate." Hartford Courant 10 January, 2007.
I. Charles Mathews, a blast from Hartford's political past, is expected today to announce his candidacy to run against Mayor Eddie A. Perez in the 2007 election.
Mathews, a former deputy mayor in Hartford, joined a growing list of candidates seeking to oust Perez, who on Tuesday made official his bid for re-election by registering as a candidate with the city clerk.
[...]
Mathews said his candidacy will concentrate on a revision of the city's strong-mayor charter, fine-tuning the document to provide enhanced checks and balances against the mayor.
Mathews wants to focus city dollars on a handful of issues - jobs for city residents, improved education for its children, economic development downtown and in local neighborhoods and revitalizing some of the city's most downtrodden areas. (Goren)
Others currently in the race are former State Rep. Frank Barrows and current State Rep. Art Feltman, both Democrats.
The consensus this year is that Perez has made a lot of enemies in Hartford, and he is seen, among other things, as power-hungry and out-of-touch with the residents of the city. He still remains a powerful force in Hartford, however, so it remains to be seen whether any of the current crop of challengers can take him down.
Above all of this is the quiet but persistent rumor that Denise Nappier might join the fray, although she hasn't said anything either way.
Source
Goren, Daniel. "Another Mayoral Candidate." Hartford Courant 10 January, 2007.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Ken Krayeske Arrest: The Police Report and Provable Reality are at Odds
Much of the online coverage of the arrest of Ken Krayeske has, rightfully, focused on the existence of a "Threat List" kept by law enforcement officials (see here, here, and here).
I want to take a moment to talk for a second about a tangential issue: the arrest itself. According to the police report:
When I spoke with Nancy Mulroy, spokesperson for the Hartford Police, she indicated that the arrest was made as a reaction to "aggressive behavior." And the behavior, according to the police report, certainly sounds aggressive.
But the police report omits a glaring object: the camera in the hands of the accused. We know for a fact that a camera was present, because the photographs that Ken Krayeske took that day have been published on his website:
In fact, according to his website (which, given the potential for litigation, I am taking for accurate as he will have to produce the time stamped photographs in court), he had time to take 23 photographs at that location before he was arrested. This does not line up with the timeline provided in the police report.
It does, however, fit perfectly with a witness statement in the Courant that directly contradicts the police report:
When I asked Nancy Mulroy where the camera was when the arrest was made she indicated, based on the listing of "Nylon bag... containing photographic equipment" in the property section of the police report, that the camera was in the nylon bag. Again, the photographic evidence makes this difficult to believe, and it is equally hard to believe that Ken Krayeske's behavior could be perceived as "aggressive" if he had a camera up to his eye.
Finally, Ms. Mulroy conveyed to me that the arrest, setting of bail, resetting of bail, and release timeline was not based on the end of the inaugural ball, but on the logistics of arrests in Hartford. The Hartford Police Department has holding cells, but not a jail, so the original bail was set ($75,000) at the police department by a Marshall and the delay was caused by the wait for a regularly scheduled shuttle to the jail. The bail was changed to a promise to appear at the jail and the further delay was caused by the wait for another regularly scheduled shuttle back to the Hartford Police Department for processing for release.
Assuming this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, its fine as far as it goes, but it is not an adequate justification for the extremely high original bail. Ms. Mulroy indicated that the original bail was set with an eye toward Mr. Krayeske's previous criminal record. But his criminal record contains only three arrests for non-violent civil disobedience - hardly the stuff that makes for high bail.
Taking all this together, and in the prism of the existence of a "Threat List," the question that emerges is Was Ken Krayeske arrested because of his actions or for some other reason? More information than the police report will be necessary to adequately answer the question and it is encouraging that Governor Rell and Judiciary Chairman Mike Lawlor are interested in investigating further.
Update: I should add that, given the police department's knowledge of its own procedure and of how long Mr. Krayeske would be in custody if he made the trip to the jail, the high setting of the bail could have been undertaken with the knowledge that it would ensure him remaining in jail until midnight or one in the morning.
I am not arguing that this was some nefarious plot; I am just arguing that the simple fact that the regular procedure caused him to remain in jail for so long doesn't let HPD off the hook - they could have been using the procedure as a tool.
Sources:
MARK PAZNIOKAS, "State Called Man `Threat'", Hartford Courant, January 6, 2007.
Ken Krayeske Arrest Report, Hartford Courant, January 6, 2007.
I want to take a moment to talk for a second about a tangential issue: the arrest itself. According to the police report:
At approximately 13:20 I was in an unmarked Police vehicle at the corner of Ford Street and Pear Street when I observed the accused suddenly ride a mountain bike at a high rate of speed directly up to the parade route, dump the bicycle, jumping off it, and then running up to the parade procession directly in front of where the Governor was passing by in the procession.
...
As I exited my vehicle and ran towards the accused I observed State Police Detective Pedro Rosado approach the accused just as the accused was stepping off the curb into the parade route, toward the Governor. Detective Rosado had placed himself between the accused and the Governor's path, I then grabbed the accused by his right arm and escorted him away from the Governor, and the parade route, which he resisted by attempting to pull away from me.
When I spoke with Nancy Mulroy, spokesperson for the Hartford Police, she indicated that the arrest was made as a reaction to "aggressive behavior." And the behavior, according to the police report, certainly sounds aggressive.
But the police report omits a glaring object: the camera in the hands of the accused. We know for a fact that a camera was present, because the photographs that Ken Krayeske took that day have been published on his website:
In fact, according to his website (which, given the potential for litigation, I am taking for accurate as he will have to produce the time stamped photographs in court), he had time to take 23 photographs at that location before he was arrested. This does not line up with the timeline provided in the police report.
It does, however, fit perfectly with a witness statement in the Courant that directly contradicts the police report:
But one witness to the arrest, Eliot Streim, contradicted the police account.
Streim, a Hartford lawyer who was watching the parade with a colleague, said police did not intercept Krayeske as he ran into the parade route. On the contrary, Krayeske photographed the governor without incident and was detained by police only after Rell had passed by, Streim said.
When I asked Nancy Mulroy where the camera was when the arrest was made she indicated, based on the listing of "Nylon bag... containing photographic equipment" in the property section of the police report, that the camera was in the nylon bag. Again, the photographic evidence makes this difficult to believe, and it is equally hard to believe that Ken Krayeske's behavior could be perceived as "aggressive" if he had a camera up to his eye.
Finally, Ms. Mulroy conveyed to me that the arrest, setting of bail, resetting of bail, and release timeline was not based on the end of the inaugural ball, but on the logistics of arrests in Hartford. The Hartford Police Department has holding cells, but not a jail, so the original bail was set ($75,000) at the police department by a Marshall and the delay was caused by the wait for a regularly scheduled shuttle to the jail. The bail was changed to a promise to appear at the jail and the further delay was caused by the wait for another regularly scheduled shuttle back to the Hartford Police Department for processing for release.
Assuming this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, its fine as far as it goes, but it is not an adequate justification for the extremely high original bail. Ms. Mulroy indicated that the original bail was set with an eye toward Mr. Krayeske's previous criminal record. But his criminal record contains only three arrests for non-violent civil disobedience - hardly the stuff that makes for high bail.
Taking all this together, and in the prism of the existence of a "Threat List," the question that emerges is Was Ken Krayeske arrested because of his actions or for some other reason? More information than the police report will be necessary to adequately answer the question and it is encouraging that Governor Rell and Judiciary Chairman Mike Lawlor are interested in investigating further.
Update: I should add that, given the police department's knowledge of its own procedure and of how long Mr. Krayeske would be in custody if he made the trip to the jail, the high setting of the bail could have been undertaken with the knowledge that it would ensure him remaining in jail until midnight or one in the morning.
I am not arguing that this was some nefarious plot; I am just arguing that the simple fact that the regular procedure caused him to remain in jail for so long doesn't let HPD off the hook - they could have been using the procedure as a tool.
Sources:
MARK PAZNIOKAS, "State Called Man `Threat'", Hartford Courant, January 6, 2007.
Ken Krayeske Arrest Report, Hartford Courant, January 6, 2007.
More Site Trouble
Blogger was down for much of the late morning and early afternoon. This, if anyone is wondering, is why we are switching soon to our beautiful new site at:
http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net
Bookmark it now! Whenever Blogger is down over the next week or so, go and check this site. You can also check the forum for all the latest chatter at:
http://forum.ctlocalpolitics.net
In honor of the site's second anniversary, we will be leaving Blogger and going live exclusively on the new site by January 17th.
Go bookmark both sites now!
http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net
Bookmark it now! Whenever Blogger is down over the next week or so, go and check this site. You can also check the forum for all the latest chatter at:
http://forum.ctlocalpolitics.net
In honor of the site's second anniversary, we will be leaving Blogger and going live exclusively on the new site by January 17th.
Go bookmark both sites now!
Another Update on the Arrest of Ken Krayeske
Cross posted at the new site
From the Courant:
Obviously there should be a probe. Why was Ken on that list, or why did he meet "federal guidelines," as is stated here? Are blogs and other sites actually being monitored by law enforcement?
And Pattis is correct--the high bail, then the release after the ball was done, are both highly suspicious.
More light, please.
Source
Keating, Christopher. "Probe Urged After Arrest Of Activist At Rell Parade." Hartford Courant 9 January, 2007.
From the Courant:
Several lawmakers said they were outraged, calling for legislative hearings and saying the incident reeks of a secret police force and should not be tolerated in Connecticut.
[Commissioner Leonard] Boyle Monday denied the state police keep a list of political enemies, saying that the notion is "completely incorrect."
"We do not maintain such lists," he said.
[...]
Krayeske's lawyer, Norman Pattis, said police had no reason to detain Krayeske on a high bail, and then release him without bail once the governor's inaugural ball had ended.
"The courts say bond is intended only to ensure appearance at trial. They don't say you can use it to ice someone out of the governor's ball," Pattis said. "That to me is far more troubling than the arrest itself." (Keating)
Obviously there should be a probe. Why was Ken on that list, or why did he meet "federal guidelines," as is stated here? Are blogs and other sites actually being monitored by law enforcement?
And Pattis is correct--the high bail, then the release after the ball was done, are both highly suspicious.
More light, please.
Source
Keating, Christopher. "Probe Urged After Arrest Of Activist At Rell Parade." Hartford Courant 9 January, 2007.
Did Lieberman Mislead Voters?
Let's see. This is from an article in the Stamford Advocate, but there's lots more in many other places:
However:
Lieberman's Iraq policy was never all that clear during the campaign, so this, which appears to be more of a modification of his earlier pro-war stance and not an about face, probably won't either surprise or alarm most voters.
Still, Lieberman hasn't been entirely consistent as he claims, and he certainly never suggested a troop "surge" like what he is proposing now. The campaign may have gone differently if he had. Lieberman effectively neutralized his nebulous stand on Iraq as an issue, instead focusing on partisanship, but if he had expressed support for the "surge," which is turning out to be an unpopular position, he probably would have had a tougher time of it.
Lieberman needs to explain why and how his thinking on Iraq has shifted. To claim that this has always been his position, and that he has always been consistent on Iraq, is to rewrite history.
Source
Lockhart, Brian. "Critics rap Lieberman position on troops." Stamford Advocate 9 January, 2007.
Lieberman and U.S. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., co-authored a letter to President Bush "strongly encouraging" him to send more troops "to improve the security situation on the ground."
However:
In a July 6 debate with Lamont, Lieberman said he was "confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops."
[...]
After losing the Democratic primary to Lamont and forming his own party running as an independent Democrat, Lieberman outlined a 10-point plan for Iraq in which he called for increasing the number of U.S. troops embedded in Iraqi units two- or three-fold. But he said this should be done by redeploying existing troops "not adding new troops to the region." (Lockhart)
Lieberman's Iraq policy was never all that clear during the campaign, so this, which appears to be more of a modification of his earlier pro-war stance and not an about face, probably won't either surprise or alarm most voters.
Still, Lieberman hasn't been entirely consistent as he claims, and he certainly never suggested a troop "surge" like what he is proposing now. The campaign may have gone differently if he had. Lieberman effectively neutralized his nebulous stand on Iraq as an issue, instead focusing on partisanship, but if he had expressed support for the "surge," which is turning out to be an unpopular position, he probably would have had a tougher time of it.
Lieberman needs to explain why and how his thinking on Iraq has shifted. To claim that this has always been his position, and that he has always been consistent on Iraq, is to rewrite history.
Source
Lockhart, Brian. "Critics rap Lieberman position on troops." Stamford Advocate 9 January, 2007.
Monday, January 08, 2007
New Forum At ctlocalpolitics.net
As you may or may not remember, Connecticut Local Politics is going to be moving off of Blogger's free server space (and away from Blogger's platform altogether) and onto another host. This means a few changes, such as a change in URL (our new URL is the much shorter and simpler http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net), better reliability (meaning less downtime and slowdowns), more organization and functionality for the blog itself and some new features that we hope you'll like.
The first of these new features is a bulletin board/forum, which is now located at http://forum.ctlocalpolitics.net. Think of it as a perpetual open forum, where members of this community can talk to one another about all kinds of issues. One area is for comments about what sorts of things you'd like to see out of this site in the future--and I hope you'll put your two cents in!
You can also check out the blog site, but there's very little there right now. I'll be importing files to the new site over the next few weeks.
FYI - You will need to register to post on both the blog site AND the forum. Sorry about that--I'm working on creating a single login for both, but haven't yet figured it out.
The first of these new features is a bulletin board/forum, which is now located at http://forum.ctlocalpolitics.net. Think of it as a perpetual open forum, where members of this community can talk to one another about all kinds of issues. One area is for comments about what sorts of things you'd like to see out of this site in the future--and I hope you'll put your two cents in!
You can also check out the blog site, but there's very little there right now. I'll be importing files to the new site over the next few weeks.
FYI - You will need to register to post on both the blog site AND the forum. Sorry about that--I'm working on creating a single login for both, but haven't yet figured it out.
Local Politics Roundup
I've been sorely neglecting the town weeklies over the last year, and I'm going to start to remedy that now with a look at some of the political stories out there in our towns.
Wethersfield
Wethersfield has a new mayor after Mayor Russell Morin became a state representative. The new mayor is lifelong Wethersfield resident Andrew Adil, a Democratic town councilman.
Democrat Paul Montinieri was also appointed to the council.
Gould, G.C. "Town council appoints new mayor and councilor." Wethersfield Post 4 January, 2007.
Darien
Charter changes may be coming as a charter review commission begins to meet. One of the major issues seems to be the fate of the RTM:
The RTM structure is somewhat common in southwestern Connecticut, but almost nonexistent elsewhere in the state.
Foster, Brian. "Charter Review to Begin." Darien News-Review 4 January, 2007.
Fairfield
First Selectman Ken Flatto is getting a head start on this year's election:
There is no Republican candidate as yet.
Lynch, Erin. "Exploring Re-Election." Fairfield Citizen-News 5 January, 2007.
Greenwich
A town panel has ruled that a member of the RTM can't vote because his house is not in Greenwich--although his property partly is:
Greenwich is a weird place. Enough said.
Cassidy, Martin. "RTM member can't vote." Greenwich Time 8 January, 2007.
What other local stories are out there that I'm missing?
Wethersfield
Wethersfield has a new mayor after Mayor Russell Morin became a state representative. The new mayor is lifelong Wethersfield resident Andrew Adil, a Democratic town councilman.
Adil said he feels "an obligation to pay the town back for all it has done for me." He also thanked ex-mayor Morin for all he had done as mayor, but especially for his dedication to cleaning up the Wethersfield Cove. Adil added that he hopes to continue to work on what services the town offers residents, and to work with the Economic Development Improvement Commission (EDIC) and the newly formed redevelopment agency.
Democrat Paul Montinieri was also appointed to the council.
Gould, G.C. "Town council appoints new mayor and councilor." Wethersfield Post 4 January, 2007.
Darien
Charter changes may be coming as a charter review commission begins to meet. One of the major issues seems to be the fate of the RTM:
"...[W]e (Darien) haven't had enough people over the years to run for the RTM, which is directly attributed to people not understanding the board's role in town," [Commission member] Tallis said. "The RTM is extremely critical to how this town functions, and it will be our goal as a commission to communicate that, and other such pertinent information, to the public."
The RTM structure is somewhat common in southwestern Connecticut, but almost nonexistent elsewhere in the state.
Foster, Brian. "Charter Review to Begin." Darien News-Review 4 January, 2007.
Fairfield
First Selectman Ken Flatto is getting a head start on this year's election:
Democratic First Selectman Ken Flatto and Selectman Denise Dougiello have filed paperwork in the town clerk's office as a first step in testing the re-election waters.
[...]
Although Flatto acknowledged that the filing was "a little early," he said the decision was based on a large number of supporters who expressed "desires of setting up a committee."
There is no Republican candidate as yet.
Lynch, Erin. "Exploring Re-Election." Fairfield Citizen-News 5 January, 2007.
Greenwich
A town panel has ruled that a member of the RTM can't vote because his house is not in Greenwich--although his property partly is:
The Board for Admission of Electors voted 3-1 to adopt a 10-page decision denying Jerry and Marianne Porricelli voting and residency status, noting that even though their property straddles the Greenwich-Stamford border, their house is entirely in Stamford.
[...]
The Porricellis have argued that before they moved to the 9 Hillcrest Road home, the town's registrars assured them in writing repeatedly that they would remain Greenwich voters.
Greenwich is a weird place. Enough said.
Cassidy, Martin. "RTM member can't vote." Greenwich Time 8 January, 2007.
What other local stories are out there that I'm missing?
Panel Calls for Tolls
It seems that every couple of months the idea of reinstating tolls returns:
So! How many legislators out there are willing to vote for a bill putting up toll booths on I-95, I-84 and I-91?
Anyone?
Source
"Panel Recommends Reinstating Highway Tolls." Associated Press 7 January, 2007.
A panel has recommended that Connecticut should consider returning tolls to its highways to raise revenue and better manage congestion.
The Transportation Strategy Board issued its report on Friday and calls for legislation to pay for a comprehensive review and analysis of electronic tolls and congestion pricing.
[...]
The board said that without some new source of revenue, Connecticut will be unable to pay for numerous highway projects on the drawing board.
So! How many legislators out there are willing to vote for a bill putting up toll booths on I-95, I-84 and I-91?
Anyone?
Source
"Panel Recommends Reinstating Highway Tolls." Associated Press 7 January, 2007.
Friday, January 05, 2007
More on Activist Arrest at Inaugural
This story is finally making its way into the mainstream media. The Courant website has a Mark Pazniokas story about the incident on their front page, and has obtained the arrest report (pdf). Colin McEnroe has been following this very closely, you can see two posts on the subject on his blog here and here. Colin is right--the one who should be acting to shed some light on this very, very ugly and disturbing incident should be the governor herself.
Here's what I'd like to know: Why was Krayeske on CTIC's list? Who else is on that list? How much did the Rell Administration know about that list? Why was bond set so high?
Also, I noticed that the Courant article references statements Ken made on two websites, one of which is a comment on this CLP post, as proof of his "hostility" towards Rell.
I have a feeling we'll see this story on the front page of some state newspapers tomorrow.
Here's what I'd like to know: Why was Krayeske on CTIC's list? Who else is on that list? How much did the Rell Administration know about that list? Why was bond set so high?
Also, I noticed that the Courant article references statements Ken made on two websites, one of which is a comment on this CLP post, as proof of his "hostility" towards Rell.
I have a feeling we'll see this story on the front page of some state newspapers tomorrow.
Rep. Murphy Writes from Washington
The following is a quick post written exclusively for Connecticut Local Politics by U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy (D-5th District) describing his first day on the job. Thanks to Rep. Murphy for staying in touch despite a very busy schedule! -G.C.
Rep. Murphy is sworn in by Speaker Nancy Pelosi
This week has been nothing short of an awe-inspiring experience, and I wanted to use my first post as a new Member of Congress to share the excitement. The night before I drove down to Washington, we hosted a send-off party at Zabarra’s in New Britain. The event gave me a chance to catch up with many of the people I hadn’t seen since the election, and hearing from supporters who played such a huge role in the campaign really added to the excitement.
After driving to Washington in a car packed with Ikea boxes and a few suits, I arrived just in time to catch a glimpse of my office for the first time before rushing off to a meeting with the Democratic caucus. Meanwhile, my staff rushed to get the office ready for the swearing in on Thursday, as we were expecting more than 100 supporters who were traveling from Connecticut to stop by to see the office.
As Thursday dawned, it had all the makings of a day I wouldn’t soon forget. With all my family in town for the ceremonies and celebration, I couldn’t believe I was finally on the verge of joining the 110th Congress. I walked up the steps of the Capitol with my fiancée, Cathy, to go to the floor of the House of Representatives for the swearing in activities. At the top of the steps, I surveyed the mess in front of the Capitol where construction of the Capitol Visitors Center is in progress, and I said, “What a mess.” Of course, the mess here is little more than a few holes in the ground and construction cranes scattered about -- the real mess to clean up is Congress itself.
Before the swearing in ceremonies began, I sought out Congressman Shays on the floor of the House to tell him that I was looking forward to working with him over the course of the next two years. We spent a little too much time chatting, as when I returned to the Democratic side of the chamber, there were no seats left, so I stood in the aisle along with several other Members to take the oath.
The atmosphere in the House chamber was electric, and when Speaker Pelosi walked in, the crowd on both sides of the aisle erupted in thunderous applause. The next few hours flew by as members of the leadership spoke and I was sworn in before rushing down to the second floor of the Capitol for a private swearing in ceremony with the Speaker. The ceremony was “private” indeed: my family and I, Pelosi and the 50 or so television cameras set up from stations across the country there to catch their local Member being sworn in. What a rush!
My family and I then spent a few minutes in Statuary Hall to take some photos. I was eager to get up to the office see some of the supporters who were in town for the day, but I was only there for a few minutes before I had to go the floor for our first round of votes on the ethics reform measures that are a part of the Democrats’ ambitious “100 Hours Agenda”. I am so proud to be a part of a Congress that, on the first day of business, passed legislation that will hopefully begin to restore the public’s trust in their Congress.
Thanks for letting me share my experiences with you, and I’ll see you back in Connecticut in the coming weeks!
Congressman Chris Murphy
January 5, 2007
Rep. Murphy is sworn in by Speaker Nancy PelosiAfter driving to Washington in a car packed with Ikea boxes and a few suits, I arrived just in time to catch a glimpse of my office for the first time before rushing off to a meeting with the Democratic caucus. Meanwhile, my staff rushed to get the office ready for the swearing in on Thursday, as we were expecting more than 100 supporters who were traveling from Connecticut to stop by to see the office.
As Thursday dawned, it had all the makings of a day I wouldn’t soon forget. With all my family in town for the ceremonies and celebration, I couldn’t believe I was finally on the verge of joining the 110th Congress. I walked up the steps of the Capitol with my fiancée, Cathy, to go to the floor of the House of Representatives for the swearing in activities. At the top of the steps, I surveyed the mess in front of the Capitol where construction of the Capitol Visitors Center is in progress, and I said, “What a mess.” Of course, the mess here is little more than a few holes in the ground and construction cranes scattered about -- the real mess to clean up is Congress itself.
Before the swearing in ceremonies began, I sought out Congressman Shays on the floor of the House to tell him that I was looking forward to working with him over the course of the next two years. We spent a little too much time chatting, as when I returned to the Democratic side of the chamber, there were no seats left, so I stood in the aisle along with several other Members to take the oath.
The atmosphere in the House chamber was electric, and when Speaker Pelosi walked in, the crowd on both sides of the aisle erupted in thunderous applause. The next few hours flew by as members of the leadership spoke and I was sworn in before rushing down to the second floor of the Capitol for a private swearing in ceremony with the Speaker. The ceremony was “private” indeed: my family and I, Pelosi and the 50 or so television cameras set up from stations across the country there to catch their local Member being sworn in. What a rush!
My family and I then spent a few minutes in Statuary Hall to take some photos. I was eager to get up to the office see some of the supporters who were in town for the day, but I was only there for a few minutes before I had to go the floor for our first round of votes on the ethics reform measures that are a part of the Democrats’ ambitious “100 Hours Agenda”. I am so proud to be a part of a Congress that, on the first day of business, passed legislation that will hopefully begin to restore the public’s trust in their Congress.
Thanks for letting me share my experiences with you, and I’ll see you back in Connecticut in the coming weeks!
Congressman Chris Murphy
January 5, 2007
Open Forum
There will be more content about what's going on in D.C. later on today. Here in Connecticut, State Rep. Patricia Dillion (D-New Haven) was arrested for driving drunk, and has issued an apology. Dillon defeated her Republican opponent by a margin of 90%-10% in November. Also, business leaders are pushing for more pro-business legislation, which is no surprise.
CT News Junkie has a report on the arrest of reporter and Thornton campaign manager Ken Krayeske for, apparently, taking pictures of the inaugural parade. This is very, very ugly, and I would hope the charges would be dropped.
What else is happening?
CT News Junkie has a report on the arrest of reporter and Thornton campaign manager Ken Krayeske for, apparently, taking pictures of the inaugural parade. This is very, very ugly, and I would hope the charges would be dropped.
What else is happening?
A Connecticut Blogger in King Joe's Court
CGG contributed to the creation of this post. All pictures were taken by CGG, except for the Party Shot which was taken by Chris Bowers.
CGG and I spent yesterday in DC enjoying the pageantry of the celebrations surrounding the incoming 110th Congress (which CGG will post on extensively later). We were sitting in the Union Pub at the Connecticut Democratic Delegation's Welcome Party for their new members when we were informed that we were just across the street from Senator Lieberman's party. What's an intrepid Connecticut blogger to do? Crash, of course (especially since we had seen every Connecticut Democrat at the party, but didn't see anyone elected on the Connecticut for Lieberman line)!
So we walked across the street to Union Station and thought that we could walk right in if we looked confident. No dice, the doormen informed us that we would have to check in to enter. Anticipating the need to perform a song and dance about why we were not on the list, I launched into a story about why we had not RSVP'd only to be cut off about two words in by a "we don't care who you are" look and the handwriting of our names on name tags. We were in.
Upon entering, there was a sign welcoming us to theStuck with Joe Sticking with Joe Victory Celebration honoring supporters of the Senator for sticking with Joe, followed by a list of corporate sponsors (Aetna was the only one I saw) and what I can only assume was either nuclear secrets or damaging photographs - I suggested that CGG take a picture of the sign so people would believe that we actually got inside, when an aide, overhearing me, whisked the sign away! So here is our picture - use your imagination to see the sign:
With the sign gone we felt silly standing by the empty stand, so we went in search of someone we knew to talk to and immediately happened upon Dan Gerstein. After introducing ourselves (I had spoken with him in the past but only via phone), Dan gave us a nice compliment regarding Connecticut Local Politics (but managed to also take some shots at Connecticut's other blogs - not everyone who disagrees with you is crazy), gave me some helpful tips on how to snag a future debate for the Law School, and just generally proved that, when no one is paying him to do otherwise, he can be a really nice guy.
He even consented to having a picture taken (bookmark this if you anticipate being in a scavenger hunt where one of the items is a picture of Dan Gerstein and a blogger smiling together - this is probably one of a kind):
If you look really closely over our shoulders you can see asunrise sunset.
Finally, we had to go in search of the Senator. We found him, surrounded by well wishers and waited our turn to say hi. While we were waiting, we witnessed the following exchange:
Town DTC Chair: Hi Senator, I'm Town DTC Chair from Town and -
Joe Lieberman: [sour look] We got killed in Town. All is forgiven.
DTC: [semi-sarcastically] I forgive you too, Senator.
The sight of Senator Lieberman forgiving a town chair for working to elect the Democratic nominee (you know, doing his job) warmed my heart, so I was glad to see the town chair give it back to him a little and "forgive" him for running as a petitioning candidate.
We also witnessed the Senator visibly recognizing CGG, motioning an aide over, and the aide trying to stay between us and the handshakes. While the aide was a lovely dance partner (call me!), after a few persistent minutes of the handshake soft-shoe, I was finally face to face with the Senator.
I greeted him with "Hi Senator, my name is Gabe and I am with the Law School Democrats. I just wanted to let you know that, while we don't agree on everything, I really appreciate your decision to continue to caucus with the Democrats." The moment the words "Law School Democrats" was out of my mouth (or was it the word "Gabe"?), he gave me a withering look and turned his back to me to greet other well wishers (we hosted an event for a certain Mr. Lamont of Greenwich), pausing only to turn back around for more dagger looks when I said that I didn't agree with him on everything.
Deciding to go for broke, I reminded him of the letter that the Law School sent him inviting him to speak, and asked him if we could host him next semester. Half smirk solidly in place he shook his head no, turned his back again and maneuvered an aide between us. Senator Lieberman (D ID PCotCfLl - CT), gracious in victory.
With no one else to talk to and 15 minutes late to the netroots celebration, CGG and I took that opportunity to leave for more welcoming environs:
When we walked in, we were greeted by Lamont Internet Guru Tim Tagris who let us know that he had already had a call asking him if he was one of the bloggers who crashed the Lieberman Celebration!
Update: Sorry about the formatting, but it should be fixed!
Update II: Here is a scanned invitation to the event. The sign mentioned above was substantially similar - The only differences that I remember from my brief glimpse before it was hermetically sealed away in an undisclosed location are that the sign had the corporate sponsors listed one on top of the other and that there were more sponsors on the sign.
Update III: tparty over at MLN points out the lobbying/sponsorship connection.
CGG and I spent yesterday in DC enjoying the pageantry of the celebrations surrounding the incoming 110th Congress (which CGG will post on extensively later). We were sitting in the Union Pub at the Connecticut Democratic Delegation's Welcome Party for their new members when we were informed that we were just across the street from Senator Lieberman's party. What's an intrepid Connecticut blogger to do? Crash, of course (especially since we had seen every Connecticut Democrat at the party, but didn't see anyone elected on the Connecticut for Lieberman line)!
So we walked across the street to Union Station and thought that we could walk right in if we looked confident. No dice, the doormen informed us that we would have to check in to enter. Anticipating the need to perform a song and dance about why we were not on the list, I launched into a story about why we had not RSVP'd only to be cut off about two words in by a "we don't care who you are" look and the handwriting of our names on name tags. We were in.
Upon entering, there was a sign welcoming us to the
With the sign gone we felt silly standing by the empty stand, so we went in search of someone we knew to talk to and immediately happened upon Dan Gerstein. After introducing ourselves (I had spoken with him in the past but only via phone), Dan gave us a nice compliment regarding Connecticut Local Politics (but managed to also take some shots at Connecticut's other blogs - not everyone who disagrees with you is crazy), gave me some helpful tips on how to snag a future debate for the Law School, and just generally proved that, when no one is paying him to do otherwise, he can be a really nice guy.
He even consented to having a picture taken (bookmark this if you anticipate being in a scavenger hunt where one of the items is a picture of Dan Gerstein and a blogger smiling together - this is probably one of a kind):
If you look really closely over our shoulders you can see a
Finally, we had to go in search of the Senator. We found him, surrounded by well wishers and waited our turn to say hi. While we were waiting, we witnessed the following exchange:
Town DTC Chair: Hi Senator, I'm Town DTC Chair from Town and -
Joe Lieberman: [sour look] We got killed in Town. All is forgiven.
DTC: [semi-sarcastically] I forgive you too, Senator.
The sight of Senator Lieberman forgiving a town chair for working to elect the Democratic nominee (you know, doing his job) warmed my heart, so I was glad to see the town chair give it back to him a little and "forgive" him for running as a petitioning candidate.
We also witnessed the Senator visibly recognizing CGG, motioning an aide over, and the aide trying to stay between us and the handshakes. While the aide was a lovely dance partner (call me!), after a few persistent minutes of the handshake soft-shoe, I was finally face to face with the Senator.
I greeted him with "Hi Senator, my name is Gabe and I am with the Law School Democrats. I just wanted to let you know that, while we don't agree on everything, I really appreciate your decision to continue to caucus with the Democrats." The moment the words "Law School Democrats" was out of my mouth (or was it the word "Gabe"?), he gave me a withering look and turned his back to me to greet other well wishers (we hosted an event for a certain Mr. Lamont of Greenwich), pausing only to turn back around for more dagger looks when I said that I didn't agree with him on everything.
Deciding to go for broke, I reminded him of the letter that the Law School sent him inviting him to speak, and asked him if we could host him next semester. Half smirk solidly in place he shook his head no, turned his back again and maneuvered an aide between us. Senator Lieberman (
With no one else to talk to and 15 minutes late to the netroots celebration, CGG and I took that opportunity to leave for more welcoming environs:
When we walked in, we were greeted by Lamont Internet Guru Tim Tagris who let us know that he had already had a call asking him if he was one of the bloggers who crashed the Lieberman Celebration!
Update: Sorry about the formatting, but it should be fixed!
Update II: Here is a scanned invitation to the event. The sign mentioned above was substantially similar - The only differences that I remember from my brief glimpse before it was hermetically sealed away in an undisclosed location are that the sign had the corporate sponsors listed one on top of the other and that there were more sponsors on the sign.
Update III: tparty over at MLN points out the lobbying/sponsorship connection.
Shays Adapts to Dem Control
An interesting article about Shays in the Courant this morning. Here's what Shays will be doing for the next two years (boldface mine):
Shays will spend his time supporting the Democratic majority on issues he cares about, like ethics reform. Weirdly, he may actually have more power and influence now than he did when his own party controlled the House--not only is the Northeast in general more influential, but Shays, who is sort of playing the role Joe Lieberman played in the Senate for a long time, can make a very effective go of it by being the token Republican to support various Democratic measures, and by being a moderating influence.
Which means that unless Democrats in the 4th District can field a stellar candidate in 2008, Shays might be around for a long while to come. The major points against him last time were Iraq and his party affiliation. He moderated his position on the former and the latter may turn out to be a strength in 2008.
For now, however, I have a feeling we'll be hearing a lot about Rep. Shays in the months to come.
Source
Lightman, David. "For Shays, New Term With No Old Faces." Hartford Courant 5 January, 2006.
He had not only come through the political hurricane that felled four other incumbent House Republicans from New England, but now his opponents need his vote and his vocal support in order to give their ideas the image of bipartisanship. (Lightman)
Shays will spend his time supporting the Democratic majority on issues he cares about, like ethics reform. Weirdly, he may actually have more power and influence now than he did when his own party controlled the House--not only is the Northeast in general more influential, but Shays, who is sort of playing the role Joe Lieberman played in the Senate for a long time, can make a very effective go of it by being the token Republican to support various Democratic measures, and by being a moderating influence.
Which means that unless Democrats in the 4th District can field a stellar candidate in 2008, Shays might be around for a long while to come. The major points against him last time were Iraq and his party affiliation. He moderated his position on the former and the latter may turn out to be a strength in 2008.
For now, however, I have a feeling we'll be hearing a lot about Rep. Shays in the months to come.
Source
Lightman, David. "For Shays, New Term With No Old Faces." Hartford Courant 5 January, 2006.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
New Congress Sworn In
Read about it here. Now we'll see if they can deliver.
New Congressmen Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney were sworn in this morning. Democrats are proclaiming a new beginning for the legislative branch. What do you think?
New Congressmen Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney were sworn in this morning. Democrats are proclaiming a new beginning for the legislative branch. What do you think?
Open Forum
So what's worth talking about today?
The lieutenant governor? He really needs to get a cable access show like Rell had. The rejection of rules changes by the Democratic majority? Inclusion of special ed kids into regular classrooms? People actually seeming to like RellCare?
Our newest House members have their webpages up: http://courtney.house.gov/ and http://chrismurphy.house.gov/. Not much there yet besides the basic template.
What else is happening around the state?
The lieutenant governor? He really needs to get a cable access show like Rell had. The rejection of rules changes by the Democratic majority? Inclusion of special ed kids into regular classrooms? People actually seeming to like RellCare?
Our newest House members have their webpages up: http://courtney.house.gov/ and http://chrismurphy.house.gov/. Not much there yet besides the basic template.
What else is happening around the state?
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Escalation in Iraq: Lieberman v. Collins
In July 2006, during the Democratic Primary debate, Senator Lieberman had this to say about troop levels in Iraq:
In case you don't have access to a calendar or have been under a rock for the last week and a half, the end of that year has passed and Senator Lieberman now has this to say about troop levels in Iraq:
And this:
Greg Sargent, at The Horse's Mouth, wondered who the commanders were, noting that Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the second-highest-ranking American officer in Iraq have all resisted a troop increase.
Senator Collins (R-ME), who was part of the same delegation of Senators in Iraq, wrote an Op-Ed for the Maine newspapers (not yet available online except on the Senator's webpage, here) and she apparently met with different commanders:
So who did Senator Lieberman speak with, leading him to believe that the answer in Iraq is more troops? And was Senator Collins not included in those discussions or did she just draw radically different conclusions based on the same available evidence?
Or is someone not being entirely truthful?
Sources:
Transcript, Lieberman, Lamont Spar in Conn. Primary Debate, Washington Post, July 7, 2006.
David Lightman, Lieberman Presses Case For More Troops In Iraq, Hartford Courant, December 21, 2006.
Joseph Lieberman, Why We Need More Troops in Iraq, Washington Post, December 29, 2006.
Greg Sargent, WHICH "COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND" PERSUADED JOE LIEBERMAN THAT MORE TROOPS SHOULD GO TO IRAQ?, The Horse's Mouth, December 21, 2006.
Susan Collins, Iraq and Afghanistan: An Update from the Field, Webpage, December 29, 2006 (released to Maine newspapers for publication as an Op-Ed)
The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government. They are on the way to building a free and independent Iraq. Their military -- two-thirds of their military is now ready, on their own, to lead the fight with some logistical backing from the U.S. or stand up on their own totally.
...
So I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of the next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home.
In case you don't have access to a calendar or have been under a rock for the last week and a half, the end of that year has passed and Senator Lieberman now has this to say about troop levels in Iraq:
"After speaking with our military commanders on the ground," he said Wednesday in an e-mail, "I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad."
Lieberman, D-Conn., visited Iraq last week with a Senate delegation.
And this:
I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there...[Aside: Check out the comments to the Wa-Po Editorial, here.]
...
After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province...
Greg Sargent, at The Horse's Mouth, wondered who the commanders were, noting that Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the second-highest-ranking American officer in Iraq have all resisted a troop increase.
Senator Collins (R-ME), who was part of the same delegation of Senators in Iraq, wrote an Op-Ed for the Maine newspapers (not yet available online except on the Senator's webpage, here) and she apparently met with different commanders:
Needless to say, there was much discussion in all of our meetings - whether with Iraqi leaders, American or British commanders, or rank-and-file troops - about whether or not more American troops are needed. My conclusion is that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. Prime Minister Maliki did not welcome the prospect of more American troops and indeed seemed frustrated that he did not have more control over his own troops. One American general told me that a jobs program in Baghdad would do more good than additional troops. And it seems to me that the Iraqis themselves need to step up to deal with the sectarian violence plaguing the Baghdad region. Ultimately, resolving the sectarian violence requires a political, not a military, solution in which the Sunni minority is more fully integrated into the government.
The one region where an American commander, General Kilmer, did specifically express the need for more troops was in Anbar province. General Kilmer told us that he could use another brigade (about 3,000 troops) or even two to build on the positive developments in the region. I agree with his assessment, but think that a reallocation of troops, rather than an overall increase, could meet his need.
So who did Senator Lieberman speak with, leading him to believe that the answer in Iraq is more troops? And was Senator Collins not included in those discussions or did she just draw radically different conclusions based on the same available evidence?
Or is someone not being entirely truthful?
Sources:
Transcript, Lieberman, Lamont Spar in Conn. Primary Debate, Washington Post, July 7, 2006.
David Lightman, Lieberman Presses Case For More Troops In Iraq, Hartford Courant, December 21, 2006.
Joseph Lieberman, Why We Need More Troops in Iraq, Washington Post, December 29, 2006.
Greg Sargent, WHICH "COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND" PERSUADED JOE LIEBERMAN THAT MORE TROOPS SHOULD GO TO IRAQ?, The Horse's Mouth, December 21, 2006.
Susan Collins, Iraq and Afghanistan: An Update from the Field, Webpage, December 29, 2006 (released to Maine newspapers for publication as an Op-Ed)
Second Thoughts on Rell's Speech
You know, I've been thinking about that speech, and now that I've actually read it instead of listening to it, I have to say, it really isn't all that good.
In fact, while it's not the worst speech I've ever read by far, it's pretty bland. But when I was watching it, I kind of liked it. I thought it was a nice speech given by a nice lady.
That makes me wonder--am I some sort of gullible sap when it comes to Rell? Are my expectations for the executive branch so low or so altered in some way that I'm ready to stand up and cheer whenever she gives a mediocre speech without tripping over her lines? Am I so desperate for our leader to, well, lead that I think every half-baked, incomplete plan is a great idea?
Does she emanate some sort of mind-control ray? Or is it that she's just very likable, very unpretentious and very human? She seems like one of us. Maybe that's why so many people root for her.
I believe Rell is capable of so much, if only she would realize it. There's great potential in an apparently unpretentious, sensible, selfless and decent politician, and the landmark 2005 session of the General Assembly suggests that she, along with the other leaders of our state, can accomplish an awful lot of good together when pressed.
I want her to realize that potential. Maybe that's why I'm willing to give her a pass from time to time. But I think my patience is starting to wear a little thin. If she is to accomplish great things, now, in the first year of her own term, is the time to do it.
I will be watching. So will a lot of others who placed their faith and trust in Jodi Rell.
In fact, while it's not the worst speech I've ever read by far, it's pretty bland. But when I was watching it, I kind of liked it. I thought it was a nice speech given by a nice lady.
That makes me wonder--am I some sort of gullible sap when it comes to Rell? Are my expectations for the executive branch so low or so altered in some way that I'm ready to stand up and cheer whenever she gives a mediocre speech without tripping over her lines? Am I so desperate for our leader to, well, lead that I think every half-baked, incomplete plan is a great idea?
Does she emanate some sort of mind-control ray? Or is it that she's just very likable, very unpretentious and very human? She seems like one of us. Maybe that's why so many people root for her.
I believe Rell is capable of so much, if only she would realize it. There's great potential in an apparently unpretentious, sensible, selfless and decent politician, and the landmark 2005 session of the General Assembly suggests that she, along with the other leaders of our state, can accomplish an awful lot of good together when pressed.
I want her to realize that potential. Maybe that's why I'm willing to give her a pass from time to time. But I think my patience is starting to wear a little thin. If she is to accomplish great things, now, in the first year of her own term, is the time to do it.
I will be watching. So will a lot of others who placed their faith and trust in Jodi Rell.
Inauguration Open Forum
You can watch the inaugural festivities, which will involve marching, weapons being discharged, silly costumes, vague speeches and the interior of the Legislative Office Building, on CT-N.
Post your thoughts here.
Update: 3:00pm
Rell was sworn in for a full four-year term as governor, and delivered a short, hopeful speech. As the Rell team has been saying, it didn't provide specifics for the future, but instead was much more general. It was a decent speech, however: well-written and well-delivered (for Rell, anyway--she is a very restrained speaker).
So that's that.
Post your thoughts here.
Update: 3:00pm
Rell was sworn in for a full four-year term as governor, and delivered a short, hopeful speech. As the Rell team has been saying, it didn't provide specifics for the future, but instead was much more general. It was a decent speech, however: well-written and well-delivered (for Rell, anyway--she is a very restrained speaker).
So that's that.
Fedele Sworn In
Connecticut has a new Lieutenant Governor. The House and Senate have both begun the new session.
House Dems Assign Committee Leaders
See CT News Junkie for the complete list, but maybe the biggest news here is that newly-minted Democrat Diana Urban will be vice-chair of the General Administration and Elections Committee.
Inauguration 2007
Gov. Jodi Rell will be inaugurated for her first full term today. The Courant has more details about the festivities (PDF), including the parade route and more. The governor will also forego the traditional speech to a joint session of the General Assembly, preferring to give a single speech (her inaugural address) instead:
So why not give two general speeches? This is either very sneaky and clever or sort of lazy.
Colin McEnroe reports that Rell is promising some "surprise guests." I'm hoping for Gary Coleman.
Also, don't forget the very expensive inaugural ball, to be held at the CT Expo Center. ...Wait, the Expo Center? Don't we have the John G. Rowland Memorial Convention Center for this sort of thing? I suppose the theme for the evening will be Drafty Concrete Wonderland, or perhaps Magical Night in a Storage Shed.
You can watch all the festivities on CT-N today. That's what I'm going to do.
Source
Keating, Christopher. "One Speech Only." Hartford Courant 3 January, 2007.
From John Dempsey to Ella Grasso to John Rowland, all governors have spoken to a joint session of the legislature in the Hall of the House at the state Capitol in a tradition that covers Democrats and Republicans.
[...]
Rell, however, decided that she wants to make "one speech that is very general - mostly tone, direction," said Christopher Cooper, Rell's spokesman. "She wanted to wait until the budget address [in February] to lay out more details. This opening day speech is much more thematic than specific." (Keating)
So why not give two general speeches? This is either very sneaky and clever or sort of lazy.
Colin McEnroe reports that Rell is promising some "surprise guests." I'm hoping for Gary Coleman.
Also, don't forget the very expensive inaugural ball, to be held at the CT Expo Center. ...Wait, the Expo Center? Don't we have the John G. Rowland Memorial Convention Center for this sort of thing? I suppose the theme for the evening will be Drafty Concrete Wonderland, or perhaps Magical Night in a Storage Shed.
You can watch all the festivities on CT-N today. That's what I'm going to do.
Source
Keating, Christopher. "One Speech Only." Hartford Courant 3 January, 2007.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Waterbury: Mayoral Race Kicks Off Early
Vance Expected to Enter Race Today
Everyone's getting a head start on the mayoral race in Waterbury, this year. From the Republican-American:
On the Democratic side, there's Mayor Mike Jarjura, whose improbable victory as a write-in candidate made national news in 2005, who may or may not be seeking a fourth term. Alderman Paul Vance, a top vote-getter in Waterbury, is (according to the Rep-Am) going to announce his candidacy today. Former Alderman Richard Scappini and 2005 primary winner Karen Mulcahy are also mentioned as possibilities--even if Jarjura runs.
Republicans have several possible candidates, including Rep. Anthony J. D'Amelio (R-71st), Rep. Selim Noujaim (R-74th), Alderman Dennis Odle and Alderman Paul V. Ciochetti.
Waterbury is absolutely worth keeping an eye on--this could be, as I've said, the most interesting race we see in 2007.
Source
Gambini, Steve. "WATERBURY: GOP aims to get jump start on mayor's race." Waterbury Republican-American 2 January, 2007.
Everyone's getting a head start on the mayoral race in Waterbury, this year. From the Republican-American:
The dawn of the new year finds city Republicans pushing themselves to have a mayoral candidate in hand within the next several weeks.
That decision, combined with the expected entrance of Democratic Alderman J. Paul Vance Jr. into the race today, kicks off one of the earliest campaigns for the office in years. (Gambini)
On the Democratic side, there's Mayor Mike Jarjura, whose improbable victory as a write-in candidate made national news in 2005, who may or may not be seeking a fourth term. Alderman Paul Vance, a top vote-getter in Waterbury, is (according to the Rep-Am) going to announce his candidacy today. Former Alderman Richard Scappini and 2005 primary winner Karen Mulcahy are also mentioned as possibilities--even if Jarjura runs.
Republicans have several possible candidates, including Rep. Anthony J. D'Amelio (R-71st), Rep. Selim Noujaim (R-74th), Alderman Dennis Odle and Alderman Paul V. Ciochetti.
Waterbury is absolutely worth keeping an eye on--this could be, as I've said, the most interesting race we see in 2007.
Source
Gambini, Steve. "WATERBURY: GOP aims to get jump start on mayor's race." Waterbury Republican-American 2 January, 2007.
Monday, January 01, 2007
The Debate Over Health Care
Politics is the art of the possible - Otto von Bismarck
Health care is an issue that provokes passionate debate, and that debate is certain to intensify as the legislative session gets underway. Gov. Rell fired the first shot with a proposal that would encourage insurers to provide a low-cost plan to those who need it--but that idea has been attacked as being too expensive for the very poor at a proposed $250/month, and too reliant on the will of insurance companies.
Yet the will to pass real universal health care seems thin. Take these comments from Speaker James Amman, for example:
Amann may simply be keeping expectations down, but proponents of universal health care should take this as a signal that they may not, in fact, see any type of universal coverage this year.
Yet I believe it can be done. I've suggested in the past that a single-payer system might be good for Connecticut and for the country (although I have concerns about what the collapse of the insurance industry would do to Hartford, and single-payer systems have problems of their own), but realistically, American governments are not going to pass such a plan any time soon. Such a system was a dramatic failure in 1993, and only 39% of Americans support replacing the current system with a new, government-run health care system (see the Nov. 9-12, 2006, poll on this page). So we're not there, yet.
Therefore, let's deal with what's possible. Amann wants to expand HUSKY to include all children, and I think this is a laudable goal. But I believe we can do better than that. I propose implementing a hybrid plan which would help the poorest afford basic, state-subsidized health insurance, while working with insurance companies to provide a better and more affordable range of options for everyone else. We can cover many people by expanding Medicaid, and the rest can be dealt with through new state programs. We can base our plan on that of Massachusetts, which now requires health insurance for all residents, and provides a subsidy to low-income residents to help them pay for it. One of the options available could be Rell's $250/month plan.
Therefore, Connecticut residents could choose either a state-backed (and possibly partly state-funded) plan, or go with the health plans provided by their employers. As for funding, I suggest that we revisit some of the plans proposed during the gubernatorial race, especially those of Dan Malloy.
We can debate whether actually requiring people to have health insurance is the way to go. But I believe that this sort of hybrid plan, which combines subsidized health care for the truly needy with a wider range of private health insurance choices would extend access to health care to everyone who needs it and help to keep costs level or bring them down for many Connecticut residents.
Better yet, it's actually possible to do. We can create a plan that would make sure all of Connecticut's residents have access to health care. It's complex, but not such a monumental task as scrapping the current system and replacing it with a new one would be. I urge the Speaker and the legislature to create and passing such a plan this year. Connecticut deserves it.
Sources
Keating, Christopher. "State Faces Daunting Issues In Legislature." Hartford Courant 1 January, 2007.
Gallup Poll. Nov. 9-12, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). (http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm)
Health care is an issue that provokes passionate debate, and that debate is certain to intensify as the legislative session gets underway. Gov. Rell fired the first shot with a proposal that would encourage insurers to provide a low-cost plan to those who need it--but that idea has been attacked as being too expensive for the very poor at a proposed $250/month, and too reliant on the will of insurance companies.
Yet the will to pass real universal health care seems thin. Take these comments from Speaker James Amman, for example:
Although many Democrats have talked about adopting universal health care, Amann cautions that this is a lofty goal for such a complicated issue. Since solving the entire problem is unlikely, the legislature should instead focus on solving one part of the problem, he said.
"If you think we're going to conquer the world next year and get everybody covered, it would be a miracle," Amann said before Rell announced her plan. "I'm sure the governor would love to sign that bill. I think if we concentrate on the kids with a program we have called HUSKY, which is one of the best in the nation, improving that and creating more access and more prevention, we can at least conquer that [this] year." (Keating)
Amann may simply be keeping expectations down, but proponents of universal health care should take this as a signal that they may not, in fact, see any type of universal coverage this year.
Yet I believe it can be done. I've suggested in the past that a single-payer system might be good for Connecticut and for the country (although I have concerns about what the collapse of the insurance industry would do to Hartford, and single-payer systems have problems of their own), but realistically, American governments are not going to pass such a plan any time soon. Such a system was a dramatic failure in 1993, and only 39% of Americans support replacing the current system with a new, government-run health care system (see the Nov. 9-12, 2006, poll on this page). So we're not there, yet.
Therefore, let's deal with what's possible. Amann wants to expand HUSKY to include all children, and I think this is a laudable goal. But I believe we can do better than that. I propose implementing a hybrid plan which would help the poorest afford basic, state-subsidized health insurance, while working with insurance companies to provide a better and more affordable range of options for everyone else. We can cover many people by expanding Medicaid, and the rest can be dealt with through new state programs. We can base our plan on that of Massachusetts, which now requires health insurance for all residents, and provides a subsidy to low-income residents to help them pay for it. One of the options available could be Rell's $250/month plan.
Therefore, Connecticut residents could choose either a state-backed (and possibly partly state-funded) plan, or go with the health plans provided by their employers. As for funding, I suggest that we revisit some of the plans proposed during the gubernatorial race, especially those of Dan Malloy.
We can debate whether actually requiring people to have health insurance is the way to go. But I believe that this sort of hybrid plan, which combines subsidized health care for the truly needy with a wider range of private health insurance choices would extend access to health care to everyone who needs it and help to keep costs level or bring them down for many Connecticut residents.
Better yet, it's actually possible to do. We can create a plan that would make sure all of Connecticut's residents have access to health care. It's complex, but not such a monumental task as scrapping the current system and replacing it with a new one would be. I urge the Speaker and the legislature to create and passing such a plan this year. Connecticut deserves it.
Sources
Keating, Christopher. "State Faces Daunting Issues In Legislature." Hartford Courant 1 January, 2007.
Gallup Poll. Nov. 9-12, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). (http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm)
New Year Open Forum
The Courant argues that Justice Borden should be made Chief Justice. I agree. Borden deserves the honor, and would do a good job--even if he would be forced to retire in August.
The Courant also lists some of the problems facing the legislature, including health care, energy costs and the state police.
New laws, including a minimum wage hike, go into effect today.
More reactions to Rell's health care plan, which I still believe is a positive first step (if not a final and full solution to the problem).
What else is going on?
The Courant also lists some of the problems facing the legislature, including health care, energy costs and the state police.
New laws, including a minimum wage hike, go into effect today.
More reactions to Rell's health care plan, which I still believe is a positive first step (if not a final and full solution to the problem).
What else is going on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)