New Haven Independent

Tough Enough To Tackle “Grandma”?

by Paul Bass | March 3, 2009 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (24)

When Susan Bysiewicz talks about the chances of Democrats winning their first gubernatorial election in 24 years, she thinks back to watching John DeStefano debate M. Jodi Rell.

The year was 2006. DeStefano was the Democratic challenger to the Republican incumbent governor. By most accounts — including those of some Rell partisans — DeStefano destroyed Rell in the debate. Politely, of course. One candidate, DeStefano, emerged conversant with issues and determined to tackle them. One, Rell, looked lost.

Connecticut yawned. The Democrats went on to lose the gubernatorial election, as they have time and again since their last victory in 1986.

Two Democrats who tried and failed to earn a spot on that stage in 2006 are back at it now: Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz and Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy. They’ve formed “exploratory” committees to seek the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Along with another Democratic hopeful, former House Speaker Jim Amann, Bysiewicz and Malloy are criss-crossing the state making their case, including recent stops at the New Haven Independent’s office.

In separate interviews, they offered similar critiques of the governor. They offered similar overall themes of reversing the state’s job losses: 30,000 disappeared in 2008 alone, with another 60,000 to 90,000 predicted for this year.

They presented somewhat different visions of how to offer an alternative — and of how to view that lopsided 2006 DeStefano-Rell debate.

DeStefano’s advisers had impressed on him the need that night to avoid looking mean, or angry, or hostile in any way to the popular incumbent with the grandmotherly image. A combative approach might pay off in most campaign debates. But it would backfire here.

If she gets the chance to go toe-to-toe with Rell in 2010, Susan Bysiewicz is confident she won’t hold back. If Rell runs for reelection — and the conventional wisdom right now is that she plans to — the Democrats will need a tough standard-bearer, Bysiewicz’s partisans say.

Bysiewicz, who’s 47, has taken on an insider-favored female challenge before. She left the white gloves at home. In 1998 she wrested the nomination for secretary of the state through tireless campaigning and with a slash-and-burn TV ad basically accusing her female opponent of supporting child molesters. Bysiewicz has served as secretary of the state ever since, awaiting her moment to occupy the chair once filled by her role model, the late Gov. Ella Grasso. She leads the pack so far in early polling on potential Democratic gubernatorial candidates.

“I was very impressed with his performance during the debate,” Bysiewicz said of Destefano. But “you almost got the sense that he was holding back. He didn’t want to be seen as attacking ‘grandma.’”

“I don’t think,” Bysiewicz added, “that dynamic will be true if I’m the candidate.”

To Dan Malloy, any candidate would have faced an “impossible” situation in that debate. It was impossible to turn people’s attention to the governor’s race: The economy was strong; Rell’s low-key manner offered relief from the scandals of her predecessor, Gov. John Rowland; and a different campaign, for U.S. Senate, had captured the attention of the state.

Malloy, who’s 53 and retiring this year after 14 years as Stamford’s mayor, argued that in 2010 he’ll be able to convince people to tune in by capitalizing on a crisis atmosphere in Connecticut.

“At some point people are going to make a connection between what’s wrong with Connecticut,” he insisted, “and the person who’s been leading it as number one or number two [lieutenant] for the past 16 years.”

Can We Talk?

To guide them toward that connection, the Democratic candidate will need to force “honest conversation” on the state about the depth of the state’s financial troubles and the need for tough decisions, Malloy said. He claimed he has been a lonely voice doing that so far this political season.

He identifies not just Rell, but “the mainstream media” and his fellow Democrats as culprits.

Malloy’s Exhibit A: Rell’s Feb. 4 budget address.

Rell, sounding very much like a candidate wanting to brand her opponents as tax-and-spend liberals, presented a budget with no tax increases. But it assumed a projected $6 billion budget gap over the following two years. Her own budget adviser had already put the gap at $8 billion. Other analysts put it higher.

In the legislative chamber where Rell delivered the address, Malloy immediately blasted it as phony. Meanwhile, he noted, his fellow Democratic mayors were praising Rell’s budget. Then “every major editorial board in the state endorsed what she said — and none of them did the math. Now we’ve got a lot of people with egg on their face.”

And they still won’t admit the obvious, in Malloy’s view: that taxes need to rise.

He wasn’t willing in the interview to commit to supporting a so-called “millionaire’s tax” on highest-income earners. But he said the state needs to institute a “progressive” income-tax hike.

“We can’t cut our way out of a $5 billion gap [projected for 2012]. We can’t cut our way out of a $10 billion gap [over the next two years,” Malloy insisted.

The state will need painful budget cuts, too, he said. He offered no specifics beyond eliminating general “non-civil service middle management” positions that have ballooned in agencies like the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Like Susan Bysiewicz, Malloy also criticized Rell for not offering a long-term vision for the state or hands-on management. Both “exploratory” Democratic candidates vowed to conduct a thorough review of how all state agencies operate day-to-day in order to restructure them.

Despite the need for tighter budgets, the state needs to restart the economy by making strategic investments that help businesses grow, both Malloy and Bysiewicz said. They identified different priorities for that investment. Malloy’s top four: transportation, education, housing, and economic development programs.

“Sustinet” Supporters

Bysiewicz identified two different issues as top priorities: health care and energy costs.

Those two costs alone most of all are driving people out of business or preventing them from opening new ones, Bysiewicz said. Her office, which collects statistics on state businesses, recorded a record 13,400 closings in 2008.

Bysiewicz embraced the notion of forming larger pools of people eligible to join state-negotiated health care insurance plans as a way both to lower costs and to move toward covering the 10 percent of Connecticut currently uninsured. She in particular endorsed the Universal Health Care Foundation’s “Sustinet” proposal. (Read about that here.) She spoke of the 700 to 800 people from all backgrounds who attended a Hartford rally to support the plan’s unveiling. That showed the state’s ready to support a universal plan, she argued.

Malloy also supports Sustinet, his campaign staff later clarified.

Bysiewicz has toured the state pushing the idea of larger insurance pools. (Click video to watch.) The Democrats passed one such plan last year; Gov. Rell vetoed it based on controversial estimates by insurance companies whose profit margins were threatened by the plan; they claimed it would end up raising rather than lower costs.

“The reason we’re talking about pooling is, it’s been successful in 25 other states,” Bysiewicz said. “The more clients you service,” the lower the rates that can be negotiated.

Any successful job-creation strategy must focus on businesses with three to nine employees, Bysiewicz argued. They constitute 75 percent Connecticut’s businesses. Those are the companies often unable to meet either health insurance premiums or electric bills.

She scored Rell for a pound-foolish proposed cut in the latter area. The governor wants to remove $10 million from a clean energy fund that helps homeowners and business owners make their buildings more energy efficient. Like health care investment, that fund more than pays for itself in the long run, Bysiewicz argued. She also argued that Rell is responsible for the Department of Utility Control’s inability to rein in rates, because she names its members.

Unlike Malloy, Bysiewicz wasn’t ready to support the idea of raising taxes. “There are a couple of things we have to do before talking” about that, she said, such as “eliminating corporate tax loopholes.”

“Warmed Over”

Rell’s office declined comment, referring calls to Republican State Chairman Chris Healy (pictured). He dismissed Malloy’s and Bysiewicz’s vision as “the same old warmed-over cliches about job creation.” Rell has indeed made tough choices that Democrats aren’t willing to make, he said.

Case in point: That Clean Energy Fund.

“Everyone’s program has value,” Healy said. “Clean energy fund, yeah it’s a great program. But you know what? The free market can respond to that problem in different ways. Right now we’re talking about people’s survival — their fear that they will not be able to provide basics to their family.

“Tell someone who lost their job, who’s up against keeping their house, that we have to keep the Clean Energy Fund. It’s not that easy.”

State government needs to focus on basic services, Healy argued. It can’t afford a lot of the programs Democrats endorse, or some of the commissions Rell has proposed eliminating, such as the Latino Puerto Rican Affairs Commission

Healy also disagreed with the critique that Rell has been a hands-off governor uninterested in reexamining government agencies’ mission. Her budget reflects that she is indeed rethinking the state’s role, he argued.

“Gov. Rell knows exactly what’s going on in the state,” Haley maintained. “This is a small state. Her management style is hers, and it has been effective. That’s why her popularity is high. People believe she is asking those questions.”

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: ROBN | March 3, 2009 12:56 PM

RUN SUSAN.

Mayor DeStephano's campaign was completley wrong. He had a chance to paint a portrait of Jody Rell in the room next to CORRUPT John RowlaNd (which she was) and he missed the opportunity. If I hear another comparIsion OF jr to the loving "grandma" I'm going to wretch.

GLOVES OFF SUSAN!

Posted by: mike | March 3, 2009 12:57 PM

We can't cut our way out of a $5 billion gap [projected for 2012]. We can't cut our way out of a $10 billion gap [over the next two years," Malloy insisted.

Oh Yes We Can cut spending its easy.

Dems forget the reason they have not elected a Dem Guv is because they smacked a state income tax with Lowell Wicker? who promptly left the state in order to avoidpaying it. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Posted by: Joe | March 3, 2009 2:16 PM

If Chris Healy can tell me how raiding the Clean Energy fund (or any designated fund) will help anyone keep a job or house, then maybe we can have a conversation of violating the integrity of designated funds. Until then, hands off by both Democrats and Republicans from all designated state funds.

Posted by: Hmmm... | March 3, 2009 2:36 PM

Rell reminds me of Mom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mom_(Futurama)) with the fat suit on... grandmother on the outside - evil on the inside.

Posted by: Bill | March 3, 2009 2:53 PM

Nice try to promote a democrat but Major John always sounds like he has a learning disability. Meanwhile the democrats are going to tax us into another depression just as Hoover(a repub.) and FDR did in the early 1930's.

Ignorance is dangerous.

Posted by: Bill | March 3, 2009 2:55 PM

By the way Mr. Bass, is this an online newspaper or just a blog. If it's a newspaper you should know better than to pepper your "news articles" with personal opinion.

Posted by: Susan support | March 3, 2009 3:07 PM

http://www.susanbysiewicz.com check us out!!!

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | March 3, 2009 3:16 PM

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

Everyone keeps pussy-footing around, but the fact is that AR, CA, DE, GA, HI, ID, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MO, MT, NE, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, RI, SC, VT, VA, WV, WI, DC...

ALL those states have progressive income tax structures, AND they all have HIGHER marginal rates on top-earners than CT's current 5%.

Face it folks, a more progressive income tax structure is not rocket science. It's common practice throughout the USA, among all our New England neighbors, and even among many, many Red States!

Posted by: robn | March 3, 2009 4:03 PM

Bill,

If I recall my history lessons correctly (I do, you don't) FDR's progressive taxation led us OUT of depression. If you happent to be lucky enough to be above a $250,000 tax bracket (which, under Obama's plan will raise your income tax) then you don't really have much to worry about anyway.

Posted by: ctkeith | March 3, 2009 4:49 PM

Bill,

As Coach Calhoun would say, "Are you really that stupid?"

Every newspaper,TV station and Magazine article is written by a human being which means they can't help but be influenced by personal Opinions.

One of the biggest reasons newspapers are failing and blogs are growing is because "bloggers" don't pretend they don't have a point of view.

When you grow up you may even realize that "Fair and Balanced" is as much Bulls**t as the company that tried to copyright those words

Posted by: grey | March 3, 2009 6:09 PM

Bill,

feeling a little dumb? Well, don't let it get you down, you can still be a Congressman in Ohio:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/11/austria-fdr/

Posted by: robn | March 3, 2009 6:21 PM

Thanks CTKEITH for the good info,

Take note Republicans... Sarah Palin's Alaska has no income tax...no doubt living off of their communal oil revenues...I'm not quite sure if this should be catagorized as socialism or communism????

Posted by: ROBN | March 3, 2009 7:16 PM

GREY,

TOTALLY AWESOME!. But remember, you can't take all of the idiots out of the legislature becuase then it wouldn't be a representative body.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | March 3, 2009 8:52 PM

There is a reason why both of these people didn't win or quit early last time out. Hopefully their exploratory committees will come to the same conclusion they did two years ago. Dismal, lack of vision; old and tired tax and spend ideas in a state where we are quite literally, taxed to death; closing corporate loop holes; "investing" in small business - what does that mean? They offer platitudes and more of the same. I'm glad Susan accused her former opponent of supporting child molestors as if that has something to do with being Sec of State. That's uplifting knowing a gubernatorial candidate is willing to get in the mud for a political cat fight and embrace character assassination in the process. Just what we really need in the Gov's chair. NOT.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | March 4, 2009 4:30 PM

4 more years of another professional politician. Gosh, they are just so entrenched.

Posted by: ROBN | March 4, 2009 6:22 PM

CHW,

You are correct that we are taxed to death, but the reason for that is a total reliance on property taxes (hurts the poor and middle class) and an anemic income tax (benefits the super wealthy). The wealthy pay very little income tax in CT. Take a look at our income tax compared to other states in the data that GRAY hotlinked...its an eye-opener..
Even President Eisenhower agreed in the power of prgressive taxation and in his day, the highest tax bracket for super wealthy was 90% (today its 35% max) and capital gains was treated no differently than earned income (today its 15% max). Our government doesn't have enough money to operate properly and provide services to the middle class becuase its beeing starved by the rich.

Posted by: Mike45 | March 4, 2009 6:56 PM

The depression was worse in 1937 than in
1929. What got us out of the Depression was
the War. A war which Roosevelt actively pursed
and wanted. See Japanese Embargo, Lend Lease and
look up Reuben James sunk. By the way I believe
he was right about the threat from Japan and
Germany just as Bush was right about the threat
from Iraq,North Korea, and Iran. There is an old
saying in the West, "God created man in his own image but Samuel Colt made them all equal. In the
nuclear age, "God made nations large and small, but Enrico Firmi made them all equal. Don't forget to Duck and Cover.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | March 4, 2009 8:11 PM

Robn:

You are partially right about single stream revenue re: property tax; but it's not hardly the single stream the mayor always makes it out to be. PILOT payments; ECS funding for schools and a host of other state and federal grants pays for a lot more. New Haven's fundamental problem is that it employs too many people and tries to do too much. According to the budget, we now employ over 5,000 people - this employment has actually grown while the city has been in a hiring freeze...it's absurd. With that employee base, it is no wonder there is never enough money. You combine that employee base with a debt level that exceeds a billion dollars - gobbling up $63 million a year in interest payments - no wonder we are broke and its getting worse. While I feel sorry for the people who were recently laid off, fact is the mayor has lead the workforce down a path believing they were safe even as he spent us into a hole. We really should get our workforce down to the 3,500 to 4,000 level. The Hartford Public Schools alone, laid off more than we did across the whole system.

Posted by: robn | March 4, 2009 10:04 PM

CHW,

I have honestly pondered the question of city goverment size long and hard and have researched as best I can, but cannot find any historical data for employee per capita in comparably sized American cities. I appreciate that you may have had some experience that allows you to gut check this but I'd like something firmer. if you can lead me to some credible resource tIat supports the 3500-4000 employee assertion, I'd love to see it.

Posted by: Streever | March 5, 2009 8:16 AM

I hope Malloy drops out & we can get Susie up there: a. she's an incredible candidate & b. Come on! Urban Democratic mayors running for Governor in CT? I know this is New Haven/Stamford, but you have to win the suburbs, to win the state, & there is no urban mayor who is going to do that. This state has more acres of forest than city :). We need someone extremely well known like Susie or someone who can get the squirrels & the deers to vote for them.

Posted by: Colleen | March 5, 2009 8:44 AM

Hey, Mike:
Lowell Weicker is not a Democrat.

Posted by: granma | March 5, 2009 12:55 PM

I am a democract but quite discussted how the party is operating especially in New Haven..more like Mafia style twist arm attitude....the Mayor DEM. Chair Susue Voight when they want you out they get someone to run against you and support them not for the better of the party but themselfs..

Posted by: mike | March 6, 2009 10:33 AM

Dear Colleen:

I never said Lowell W. was a Dem. Said
the Dems with L.W. gave us an income
tax. Happy St. Paddy's day colleen Colleen.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | March 8, 2009 9:04 AM

Robn:
I have not found any research on the ideal size of government for a state, or for a city/town. It seems to be directly tied to the philosophy of those in power and whether they think govenment should do more and what role if any personal responsibility plays.

I have had the pleasure of living all over the cuntry and seeing first hand, the results government of different size, what effect that has on its citizens and how the expense translates into the tax take on citizens. I base my comments on that experience, not on research.
You almost have to have a city in mind, and then do the comparison.

One city I look to, is Winston Salem, NC. Population is 245K; demographics are nearly identical to New Haven; 400 cops; two major universities; large chunks of non-profit land/resources; $37,000 median income; two major hospitals. They only have 6 alders; all meetings are in the open - no private caucases to cook the books and they employ a third less people than we do.

They put a premium on personal responsibility and they have invested in technology not people to drive city services. Everything is on line from ordering a new garbage dumpster, recycling bin to filing a complaint against the police department and the results are on line too. You can even buy a building permit on line and file your plans etc. via the mail. The city departments respond to what you as a citizen do - not because city government decides it should do anything. It's version of LCI for instance responds to renter/Housing Authority or Legal Aide complaints about code violations - they don't hand out free smoke detectors and worry about whether somebody has bushes growing or ice on sidewalks.

The city also takes borrowing money and tax increases seriously - they do both carefully and long term bonding requires votes of the citizens because it will drive up taxes. The $1.5 billion school budget here - that has generated more than $300 million in new city debt would have had to be voted on by the citizens. We now spend $63 million I think the number is, on interest payments for New Haven debt. Our total debt is now more than $1 billon - we pay for employees (over 5,000) and we pay debt.

Tough Enough To Tackle “Grandma”?

Comments

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed