New Haven Independent

Dems: Let’s Reframe Budget Debate

by Ben Johnson | March 5, 2009 3:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

For Sal Luciano, the deficit clock outside the Republican state legislative offices in Hartford is not just shrewd politics, but a well-told story. In order to challenge Gov. Rell’s proposed budget, he said, Democrats will have to tell a better one.

“I think we’re missing an opportunity here,” said the labor leader. “I think outside of the Democrats’ doors they should have a job clock, because that’s what people are really worried about.”

Luciano, executive director of AFSCME Council 4, which represents state and local government employees, spoke at a meeting of the group Democracy for America at Wall St. Pizza in downtown New Haven Wednesday evening.

The clock was one idea that emerged as progressives brainstormed ways to change the terms of the debate on the state’s recession-strapped budget. Over pizza and draught beer in the dimly lit back room, about 15 members of DFA and supporters from the Obama-tied group Organizing for America sat down with Luciano, and State Senator Toni Harp, and New Haven Home Recovery Executive Director Kellyann Day for a budget strategy session.

Nathan Karnes, a progressive activist who also works for the state’s Department of Economic and Community Development, arranged the meeting in effort to mobilize progressives to lobby against the governor’s spending plan.

The trio warned of the impact of Gov. Rell’s proposed FY2010-2012 budget, which foregoes new taxes in favor of heavy cuts to state services. After a grim briefing, the discussion turned to reframing the budget debate.

Luciano outlined the difficulties in changing public perception: “There’s a huge disconnect in this state,” he said. The last Quinnipiac poll taken said that 75 percent of the state approved of the governor and 59 percent were dissatisfied with the direction Connecticut is going.

Karnes said a recent encounter in a state office building with an office supplies deliveryman made the stakes of the budget battle clear. The deliveryman stands to lose his job due to a purchasing freeze.

“It looks good on paper to say the state offices are going to have to live with the pens and paper that they have,” he said, “but the impact is there’s a truck driver for Suburban Stationers who’s going to get laid off next month. That’s why we’re doing this.”

Dr. Andy Wormser, a local physician, said the real challenge lay in changing the conversation from the temporary pinch of higher taxes to the long-term impact of cuts to essential services.

“Democrats love to talk policy, but they never talk story talk, and they need to start doing that,” he said.

Harp (pictured), who chairs the state senate’s appropriations committee, agreed.

“We’ve always allowed the Republicans to define how we look at how we’re taxed in Connecticut,” she said. “There are other states that we know are less wealthy that tax way more as a percentage of income than we do, and I think that story has got to be told, because that is a story that I think would really resonate with people, that they could relate to.”

New taxes may seem politically toxic, Luciano said, but the alternative could be far worse.

“Keeping 5 percent of your taxes doesn’t mean anything if you’re losing your job and losing your health care,” he said.

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: City Hall Watch | March 5, 2009 5:05 PM

You people just don't get it. What other people in other states pay is immaterial. Some of the other states you talk about, don't nickle and dime their citizens with double taxation on gas; deregulated utilities that don't save us money; crippling debt that sucks the cash out of the state coffers and a school system that encourages overbuilt, luxurious schools and mini-kingdoms of duplicative and counterproductive waste of mental and financial resources. What other state has 169 school superintendents? What other school than W.C. in New Haven has 7 assistant principals?

Harp, Wormser and Kearns - it's not about your message. It's about your actions. They're killing us and you're wiping out the middle class. If that's what you want to do, just be honest about it. I'd love to campaign against Harp on that qoute.

Posted by: JAK | March 6, 2009 10:17 AM

AFSCME,

From a taxpayer perspective its not about jobs. Its about productivity. Taxpayers are not concerned about paying to keep someone employed if they are not productive. If we can get away with a similar level of service for reduced costs, there's your answer.

If AFSCME wants to be relevant to people beyond the world of state and municipal workers, it needs to stop looking at it as "labor" vs management. The popular term "working families" is offensive. Which families in America don't work? High priced lawyers and doctors arguably work longer and harder than anyone does. They also worked their asses off in school for 20 years to learn their craft. But in the end, its not about how hard you work. Its about what value you add. Our world cares about consumers first, suppliers second. You don't seem to recognize it. Why do you think Wal-Mart has taken over the universe? They flourished by delivering the reasonable quality for the lowest price.

The days of a class based divisions defined by labor status are over. By and large people view their roles in companies as being players on a team. Societal evolution over decades has brought us to a place where different roles within a company are defined by skill set, no longer by who you know or who your father is. AFSCME should convince people of their goals by talking about productivity gains (if it can even make that argument). Why is saving that job in the best interest of tax payers?

Most non-union employees work far longer hours for less benefits than do unionized employees. Only 12% of the non-public sector is unionized. Your arguments about the saving of jobs does not resonate with most people now. Part of the pleasure of "working" is being part of a winning team, a successful operation, whether its a service company or a manufacturer. The financial rewards need to be divided relatively fairly, which for the most part they now are. Our equal pay laws and other labor laws have institutionalized some of the rights that the labor movement rightfully started 100 years ago.

But after the playing field is now pretty much levelled, the market should set the price. Heavy handed unions which through their old ideas of us v them, create environments which are shunned by people who want to work hard, be productive and win together. AFSCME, You guys don't get it yet.

Dems: Let’s Reframe Budget Debate

Comments

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed