One key exemption included in a pair of paid family and medical leave proposals provides all the evidence Connecticut lawmakers need to vote against these costly new mandates. Advocates say businesses have “a moral responsibility” to provide the benefit to their employees, yet the public sector is exempted from both bills, with state and local government workers left behind.
For those of you who blinked and missed it, you just gave Hartford a $550-million-dollar bailout courtesy of Connecticut’s elected leadership. They refused to let our state’s capital go bankrupt. Instead, our governor and legislators established Connecticut’s Municipal Accountability Review Board (MARB) and imbued it with super powers to save key municipalities from self-destruction. Therefore, since this is the recipe for success, there is only one thing that can be done.
With the many and varied issues the state of Connecticut currently faces, our legislature can ill afford wasting time on any issue that will not contribute to immediate fiscal relief or long-term fiscal health. The new report issued by the Commission on Fiscal Stability and Economic Growth outlines a number of critical issues that demand action, all intended to improve the state’s fiscal standing. Unfortunately, the report also includes suggested changes to collective bargaining for public employees: changes far more likely to distract from larger problems than to result in significant savings to the state.
The Commission on Fiscal Stability and Economic Growth, created during the drama-fraught 2017 budget battle to recommend bold action for jump starting Connecticut’s economy, fulfilled its mandate to produce a comprehensive plan by March 1 of this year. That doesn’t mean, however, that the study, like the dozens that have preceded it, won’t be consigned to the proverbial dust-covered shelf where its recommendations will forever be ignored. It would be a travesty if that occurred – again. Yet the likelihood of that happening is high.
I hope that state legislators will see that public charter school leaders want only to be a part of the solution for communities that we care deeply about. We have proven through our results that we are able to help students overcome the bigotry of low expectations. But in order for our schools to truly thrive, we need our leaders fund our students fairly, and allow more success stories like ours to lift up Connecticut’s children.
Automobile accidents are fourth leading cause of death in the world. If these new technologies save a single injury or death, I say bring it on. I will gladly get ready for the future knowing that we will need to adapt to thrive and survive. But not everyone in our state is ready to embrace change. For those of you who may not have been paying close attention, Tesla – the electric car manufacturer that has been leading the charge against climate change – is trying now for the fourth year to gain the ability to sell its vehicles and other products here in Connecticut.
As the gubernatorial campaign heats up with dozens of candidates, we’re hearing plans and promises to restore Connecticut to its former glory. Yet none of the candidates so far give any evidence of careful study of our distress — nor any evidence of being familiar with the well developed field of municipal and state economics and fiscal policies. So a new governor is likely to be more of the same. Regaining our past glories will be a matter of decades.
There is spending….and there is saving. No where do I see an inclination to stop spending. The state needs to roll-back (God forbid) what we pay for things. And…just so everybody sees it…that doesn’t mean “business as usual ” for the union paid folks….and the purposeful cutting of everything else (no pain for the unions) so we all foot the cuts. It means everything/everybody suffers.
We have completed an in-depth study of State procurement procedures and have found significant opportunities for improved efficiencies to save the state a significant amount of money. Deficiencies found included an appalling lack of competitive bidding on contracts (55 percent of all open contracts and 73 percent of personal services agreements did not have competition), a lax approach to the waiver process which is intended to allow exemption from seeking competition, and a lack of desire in securing knowledge transfer to state employees. Implementing the changes contained in our findings may save the state, and the taxpayers of Connecticut, an estimated $174 to $264 million annually.
Under pressure to end a long running stalemate over the Connecticut state budget last year, lawmakers made a number of decisions that continued the destructive trend of unraveling the human services safety net. The continuation of recent years’ cuts to state subsidy funding for School Based Health Centers (SBHC) is among the most destructive of these reductions. With the new legislative session underway, we are hopeful lawmakers will find a way to halt this trend and reject the governor’s current proposal to reduce the budget further, by 5.84 percent, on top of the 2.14 percent cut to the SBHCs in last October’s approved budget.
MARC Community Resources, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization providing residential and day services to individuals with intellectual, physical, and developmental disabilities throughout Middlesex County, recently received notification of denied tax exemption on several group homes, as well as two-day programs owned and operated in Cromwell. This tax forces community nonprofits like MARC, burdened by years of state budget cuts, to choose between costly litigation and paying taxes on property that is exempt by state law. Either of these options takes critical funding away from essential services for MARC’s program participants.
The proposal for substantive change presented by the Connecticut Board of Regents to the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the New England Association of Schools and College, (NEASC) called “Students First” offers many promises but little evidence and even less that is new except more budget cuts that diminish local campuses and the services they provide to their students and communities.