Sections
Neighborhoods
Features
Follow Us
NHI Newsletter
Legal Notices
Some Favorite Sites
- 5 Snacks After 10
- Abram Katz
- African independent
- At Risk for HD
- Back To Basics
- barista
- Branford Eagle
- Business NH
- Conn Art Scene
- Cornwall-On-Hudson
- Crosscut
- CT Business Litig
- CT Capitol Report
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Enviro Headlines
- CT Green Scene
- CT Law Tribune
- CT Local Politics
- CT Mirror
- CT News Junkie
- CT Watchdog
- CTV
- Design New Haven
- Gotham Gazette
- Hartford Guardian
- Josiah Brown
- Karman Turn
- La Voz Hispana
- Laurel Club
- Len's Lens
- Magrisso Forte
- Media Attache
- Media Nation
- Medical Intelligence
- Middletown Eye
- MinnPost
- My Left Nutmeg
- NBC Connecticut
- NH Advocate
- NH Register
- NH Review of Books
- NH Youth Map
- Northampton Media
- OneWorld
- Only In Bridgeport
- Oral History Project
- Reddit NH
- Road To Greenness
- Saved By Design
- See Click Fix
- Smartpill Design
- Specials In NH
- St. Louis Beacon
- Taste Of NH
- Tom Ficklin
- Valley Independent Sentinel
- Voice of SD
- VT Digger
- WFSB-TV
- WPKN Today
- WTNH
- Yale Daily News
- YourCT
Government/ Community Links
- Advocate Calendar
- Agency on Aging
- Animal Shelter Volunteers
- Arte Inc.
- Arts Council
- Beth El Keser Israel
- Bike New Haven
- Chamber of Commerce
- Children's Museum
- City of New Haven
- CitySeed
- Citywide Youth
- Community Loan Fund
- Community Mediation
- ConnCAN
- Creative Arts Workshop
- CT BAEO
- CT Tech Council
- Dariba Referrals
- Data Haven
- Elm City Cycling
- Elmseed
- Empower NH
- Friends Of Wooster Sq.
- GAVA
- Habitat For Humanity
- Info New Haven
- IRIS
- Jazz Haven
- Jewish Federation
- Job Finder
- Junta
- Labor History
- LEAP
- Legal Aid Network
- Literacy Coalition
- Magrisso Forte
- Mary Wade
- Music Haven
- New Haven 828
- New Haven Chorale
- New Haven Reads
- New Life Corp.
- NH Bulletin
- NH Land Trust
- NH Symphony
- NH/Leon Sister City
- NHS
- Orchestra NE
- PAR
- Parents Available to Help
- Pat Dillon
- Peace News
- PechaKucha
- Planned Parenthood
- Police
- Promoting Enduring Peace
- Public Allies CT
- Public Library
- Public Schools
- Public Works
- Rainbow Girls
- Register Calendar
- REX
- ROOF
- SAMA
- SCSU Events
- Share Our Voices
- Shubert
- Solar Youth
- Soul-O-Ettes
- Squash Haven
- United Way
- Urban Design League
- Urban Resources Initiative
- Ward 25 Blog
- Ward 26 Blog
- Westville Chabad
- Westville Renaissance
- Westville Synagogue
- Workforce Alliance
- Yale Events
- Yeshiva NH Shul
- Yeshiva Of NH
- Youth Continuum
Surprise! Lemar, Hauser Have Company
by Allan Appel | May 26, 2010 7:41 am
(16) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author
Posted to: Politics, State, Campaign 2010
An English Civil war scholar stormed the border from Hamden and transformed the most competitive contest for a New Haven state legislative seat into a three-way race.
His name is John Morrison.
Wearing neither cuirass nor helmet, Morrison (at center in photo) emerged modestly Tuesday evening inside the cafeteria at Wilbur Cross High School. There a Democratic Party convention was forming to endorse a candidate for the open 96th General Assembly seat that had been vacated by Cameron Staples.
The 96th is largely in New Haven, with some areas of Hamden. Of the 16 delegates who made the choice Tuesday night, 10 were from the Elm City, six from Hamden.
Under party rules for a multi-town race, anyone who receives at least 15 percent of the delegate votes—i.e., three—automatically earns a spot in a party primary, which this year takes place on Aug. 10.
Before Tuesday night’s convention, only two candidates were in the race, both from New Haven. Front runner Roland Lemar was expecting to get the majority of votes; challenger Deb Hauser was expecting to qualify with at least three delegates.
The two of them had been politely slugging it out alone since their announcements: Lemar (at right in photo) is utilizing public financing; Hauser (at left) is not. She characterizes him as an insider, with “machine” backing, whereas she admits she is new to the intricacies of policy and legislative experience. For him the chief issue facing the state is reforming education; for her it’s making the state more business friendly.
The two thought they had the field to themselves after Hamden’s Mike D’Agostino dropped out of the race weeks before.
Surprise at the Wilbur Cross cafeteria: After the New Haveners were nominated and made their two-minute speeches, the Hamden favorite son rose to make his own.
By the end of the night, Lemar received 10 votes and Hauser and Morrison three each, so that all qualified to be on ballot.
Then in a move that would have pleased Oliver Cromwell, the newcomer thrust a dramatic proposal for statewide tax and education reform into the campaign: taxing the rich more to create a dedicated revenue stream to support public schools.
“The real issue is getting the [income] tax on upper levels to support our schools. That [an increased statewide progressive income tax] would drop our property taxes around 40 percent. That’s the way to support our state and school system,” he declared.
In a conversation after the convention, Morrison said D’Agostino’s dropping out was his motivation to throw his hat in the ring. And a former governor was his inspiration for his tax-education plan.
“My basic thing is that there’s been a war on low income earners,” he said, ever since Gov. Lowell Weicker instituted a 4 percent flat income tax in the early 1990s. The richest have benefited, he said.
“My basic thing is [to] use the progressive income tax to fund 100 percent of the school system [statewide]. This will cut your property tax 40 or 50 percent. In Hamden. If you have a quarter million dollar house, you pay $6,000 [in taxes], and state is paying only 27 percent of school expenses.”
Lemar had previously spoken making education a statewide priority, with full funding of the Education Cost Sharing formula. By placing the progressive income tax front and center as the driver of those new funds, Morrison clearly sparked a fresh campaign debate Tuesday night.
“I’ve been talking about [a progressive income tax] for a long time,” responded Lemar, when asked about the proposal, essentially agreeing with the upstart. They both argued that the state has an obligation to spend more on the schools.
Property owners in New Haven and Hamden “should not have to choose between losing their homes or losing their school,” Lemar argued.
Hauser, when asked about Morrison’s position, responded “I’d like to think about it.”
She said she is concerned with business development in the state. “Rather than raising taxes, we should expand the revenue base,” she said.
She did, however, suggest that an immediate alternate pot of money for social services and relief to property tax owners could come from a very modest increase in the sales tax.
Lemar called that regressive and, unlike the progressive income tax, a burden on lower earners.
(Hauser later contacted the Independent to add that she also supports a small increase in taxes for people making over $500,000 a year as well as unspecified budget cuts.)
Morrison might have been a fresh face to some New Haveners gathered at the convention, but not to the Hamden folks with whom he’s long been involved in civic and political affairs.
By training a teacher and research historian on English history, most recently at Yale, Morrison (pictured) has been vice chairman of the Hamden Democratic Town Committee.
He lives on Whitney Avenue and is involved with the Spring Glen Civic Association.
Lemar delegate and former New Haven Alderwoman Erin Sturgis-Pascale predicted that in the Aug. 10 primary Morrison might split some of the Hamden vote with Deb Hauser, who, in her view, had been angling for it. Advantage, Lemar?
Morrison said he intends to run a real campaign.
Next round: Candidates are scheduled to debate on June 3, at 8 p.m., on the cable public access program “21st Century Conversations” moderated by N’Zinga Shani and produced by OneWorld Progressive Institute.
Tags: campaign 2010, campaign 2010, Debra Hauser, John Morrison
Post a Comment
Comments
posted by: Eric on May 26, 2010 9:34am
Everyone should relax and avoid the crazy attacks, please. Maybe Mr. Appel thinks this has been civil, but Ms. Hauser and private consulting firm routinely attack Lemar everytime they gets the chance… While Mr. Lemar refrains from doing the same, a lot of his supporters get carried away on this site and others and riddle the comments sections with crazy overstatements about Lemar’s attributes and make derisive comments about Hauser’s performances to date.
Everyone should cool down, or we will lose this seat to the Hamden candidate, which would be awful for New haven. We should all rally behind one New Haven candidate now, but I doubt Hauser will abandon her ego-trip, and Lemar has always seemed reluctant to wait his turn.
If someone can talk to one of these candidates candidly (avoid the media, please) try to get one of them to put their self-interests aside and ensure we do not split the vote.
posted by: streever on May 26, 2010 11:05am
Eric, I haven’t seen Hauser attack Lemar personally—as Appel says, it is very cordial. What you’re seeing is some grumps who just take out their frustration on Lemar.
As for his supporters speaking a bit over the top about him, he’s easily been the best Alderman we’ve had until now (Elicker changes that game a little—I’d put it at a tie). Can you blame us for being excited for his candidacy?
It’s just extremely exciting for those of us concerned with democracy & transparency to see that we could have Lemar serve in the same arena as new Rep Holder-Winfield. It’s just a breath of fresh air to see two good candidates in a row get elected to office, you know?
posted by: anon on May 26, 2010 11:11am
yes eric! great idea - let’s go against the democratic rules of the Democratic party, have a back-room conversation, and guarantee that the 96th only answers to the 65% of the district, new haven! whoop!
that would avoid a lot of annoying “debate” and “conversation” about the “problems” facing our state. would save me the hassle of even going to the polls!
posted by: The Count on May 26, 2010 11:38am
Now, if only we can find someone to run against Len Fasano…
posted by: Chris on May 26, 2010 12:43pm
Tax the rich and give to the poor… sounds good in a fairytale yet in real life the rich just move out of the state and you lose even more income.
Let’s bring some real ideas to the state as opposed to playing to the crowd.
posted by: Tom Harned on May 26, 2010 1:44pm
And where would the rich run away to Chris? New York? New Jersey? both these states have higher taxes than Connecticut. The extremely wealthy in this state can afford tax increases, as unpleasant as that may be, while the middle class and the poor cannot.
posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS on May 26, 2010 3:27pm
All this talk worries me.
On the rhetorical points - Roland and Deb are BOTH right. Education reform is the best strategy to help the business climate in our state over the long run. But why not work on both?
But then it gets kinda scary.
If by ed reform you mean property tax reform and the establishment of a progressive income tax to fully fund ECS, what in the world would that create? Have any of you actually thought that out? Have you asked educators how they would spend the extra $5 billion per year if CCJEF has its way? If they have given you answers, have you checked to see if that kind of spending yields ANY educational value whatsoever?
Why would we want to put any more money into one of the most expensive yet most disappointing school systems in the country? Above a certain level of investment, more money actually works against students by empowering those political power bases which fight tooth and nail against student-centered change. Connecticut’s schools are not under-funded, they are under-managed.
Today, what do we get for having the the third most expensive education system and the highest average teacher salaries in the country? A 6 1/2 hour school day, the largest achievement gap in the country, and powerful union resistence to even the most benign professional accountabilities.
I urge you all to please to sit with Sen. Harp and review the disciplines behind “Results-Based-Accountability” before you recommend that we fully fund ECS.
posted by: Chris on May 26, 2010 3:33pm
They actually move to Florida and New Hampshire. I personally know of people who have already done this in recent years so it is happening.
Obviously they wouldn’t move to the states you listed if they were attempting to save on excessive state taxes aimed at the wealthy.
These people already contribute significantly to our state’s economy so driving them away by increasing their taxes is not going to save the state anything in the long term.
Let’s think rationally about the real effects of increasing the taxes on our wealthy citizens and understand what the real impact would be on the state.
posted by: anon on May 26, 2010 7:02pm
Chris, I’d rather have a much higher tax rate than have our state look anything like Florida. Trailer units for schools, anyone?
It’s absurd that taxes are so low on Connecticut’s rich. At least raise taxes or congestion pricing so we can have some decent transportation here - that would create more jobs than anything else. As it is now, many state residents have no way to easily get to whatever jobs do exist, which stifles job creation and entrepreneurship, and forces working families to spend large proportions of their incomes on private automobiles.
posted by: streever on May 26, 2010 7:11pm
Chris,
the poor pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes in CT, on a per person basis a larger percentage than the rich. If the people you know think that’s OK and are opposed to paying their fair share, I’m glad they’ve moved. The people I know who would pay more under a progressive tax aren’t opposed at all—they are happy to take the burden off the poorest residents of this state. Being wealthy, they can afford it.
posted by: anon on May 26, 2010 8:21pm
Streever is correct.
Also, in addition to paying less in taxes, the wealthy receive far more $$$ in government benefits/subsidies than poor and working families do. Examples include tax deductions on large mortgages, second homes, etc.
If you think the poor receive a lot of subsidies through programs like food stamps, you should see what the upper-middle class and wealthy receive. There are reasons why healthy food and basic necessities are so much more expensive in low income areas than they are in wealthy suburbs.
Once our citizens realize these disparities, they will wake up and call for a more equitable tax structure.
posted by: Threefifths on May 26, 2010 9:52pm
posted by: anon on May 26, 2010 7:02pm
Chris, I’d rather have a much higher tax rate than have our state look anything like Florida. Trailer units for schools, anyone?
It’s absurd that taxes are so low on Connecticut’s rich. At least raise taxes or congestion pricing so we can have some decent transportation here - that would create more jobs than anything else. As it is now, many state residents have no way to easily get to whatever jobs do exist, which stifles job creation and entrepreneurship, and forces working families to spend large proportions of their incomes on private automobiles.
I agree with you on Florida. But the move is North Carolina Check out my friend summer home.
http://www.newhomesource.com/homedetail/market-174/planid-551543
As soon as I can get a sucker to buy my high tax home I am gone with the wind.
posted by: Chris on May 27, 2010 10:16am
What people don’t understand is that wealthy people contribute to the local economy in more than just paying taxes. They spend significant amounts of money locally, they bring good jobs / companies to the state, investments and philanthropy.
Why add burdens which make CT a non-attractive place for wealthy people to live and move here by adding additional tax burdens. If anything we should be trying to attract them with incentives.
Just saying “tax the rich they can afford it!” isn’t a sound argument.
posted by: Worried on May 27, 2010 11:17am
Why would we want to attract wealthy people to the state if they don’t contribute substantially to CT’s overall well-being? So they can keep people of color working off the books to do their housecleaning and yard work? So we can have more House Beautiful or House & Garden or Cottage Living magazine spreads that flaunt their wealth and make the less well-off either feel like they’ve failed on some level or put themselves into serious debt to get totally unnecessary granite kitchen countertops?
What’s the expected outcome of having CT become a virtual gated community for the wealthy?
