CT Progressive

Joe from the WFP directed my attention to the Maximum Wage Bill, HB 5077, which is being offered in the Connecticut State Legislature this year by Rep. Aresimowicz. The bill’s draft reads:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That the general statutes be amended to provide that eligibility for state economic assistance and tax expenditures for corporations be denied to such corporations whose chief executive officer earns more than twenty times the wage earned by such corporation’s lowest paid employee.

When I first heard about it, I smiled, and thought that a) it was an idea that wasn’t likely to go anywhere, and b) in particular would make executives seek out demotions to the vice-presidential position in their companies in a hurry.

But it seems like there may actually be some action on this front coming down on the Federal level. From Bloomberg:

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said it’s “very safe” to assume that new rules guiding the administration’s financial rescue will address bonuses and executive pay.

Earlier today, Senate Democrats took the first step toward limiting pay for workers at companies receiving federal bailouts. Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri introduced legislation to restrict compensation at such companies to $400,000, the equivalent of the U.S. president’s salary. Another measure being proposed would create a court to restrain executive compensation.

“We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer” by taking multimillion-dollar bonuses, McCaskill said.

Companies have continued to award bonuses after accepting funds from the $700 billion taxpayer bailout enacted by Congress last year. The Treasury Department has injected about $200 billion into banks across the country through its Troubled Asset Relief Program. [...]

McCaskill’s Cap Executive Officer Pay Act would ban any director, executive or other employee of a company receiving bailout funds from receiving more than $400,000 a year in total compensation, including salary, bonuses and retirement contributions.

Man – now that’s what we elect Democrats for. And what’s really interesting is that this proposal is even more aggressive than the one proposed by Aresimowicz – bank tellers clock in a wage somewhere in the $12/hour range, so McCaskill would let them top off around 16X the wages of their front-line workers. And this bill seems to have Obama’s support.

Also of note from the Bloomberg article is a proposal from John Larson which will be a comfort to anyone who’s lived through the last eight years only to hear that this is not the time to look backwards or fix blame for the historically epic screwups that’ve taken place. Guess what – it is indeed the time to look backwards:

In the House, Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson is proposing the creation of an independent commission to investigate the extent to which Wall Street abuses contributed to the economic crisis.

The commission would have 90 days to report back to lawmakers about regulatory, tax and other changes that should be considered. It also would examine derivative markets, mortgage- backed securities and other financial sectors to determine whether regulatory changes are needed.

“Did your regulatory agencies turn a blind eye to market manipulation and unethical behavior?” Larson, the fourth- ranking House Democratic leader, said in a statement. “Are new markets being monitored with outdated regulation? These are all questions the commission would answer.”

The panel would recommend a possible “investors’ bill of rights” designed to protect 401(k) retirement plans, pensions and other savings “from corporate greed and mismanagement,” he said.

There’s a new poll up on the AFT-CT website on the current budget, and it’s worth checking out. The poll, commissioned by a coalition of State employees unions, offers some good insight into broader public thinking on our economic situation, and how we ought to address the problems we’re facing. The links to the polling memo and presentation slides are at the bottom of the page linked above.

Seeing as we just wrapped up a big Presidential election year, I’m definitely feeling weary of polls as news items – especially since the research that a poll like this contains is unlikely to color future coverage of budget negotiations. I certainly won’t be holding my breath waiting for Rell’s proposals to be described as “the Governor’s unpopular cuts-only approach.” But still, poll-mania is simply the way of life – spicier and more objective-sounding than most press releases, paying the cost of a poll is just about the only way to guarantee your message gets into the papers. So good on SEBAC for releasing this for public consumption.

Some highlights:

Q42 I am going to read you several approaches they might be able to take in order to balance the state budget, and after I read the approaches, please tell me which approach would be your top choice for balancing the state’s budget.

And, illustrating that even goodwill for Rell personally can’t overcome the public’s preference for a revenue-based solution over Rell’s cut-based plan:

Rell’s Approach: Some leaders, including Governor Rell, say Connecticut must not raise taxes in this economic climate, and instead we must make deep cuts to state spending and focus government on the core services it should provide in order to balance the budget and address this shortfall. They say Connecticut is facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and raising taxes now would hurt businesses and cost us needed jobs, making our economy even worse. They say we have to solve this budget crisis with spending cuts alone.

(SPLIT A) Shared Sacrifices Approach: Other legislative leaders say that we cannot balance the budget with spending cuts alone as they will damage the economy further, and we have to consider a combination of spending cuts and some increases in state taxes. They say there needs to be shared sacrifices by everyone, and the state should make cuts to a variety of public services, increase income tax rates for the wealthiest, as well as close corporate tax loopholes so we can protect those state services that are most vital.

(SPLIT B) Increase Revenue/No Cuts Approach: Other leaders in the state legislature, relying on Nobel Prize winning economists, say our economy has fallen into recession, and now is not the time to make drastic cuts to jobs and services which will only damage our economy further and put us deeper into recession. Rather, they say this is the time to bring about real structural change and reform to state government, while working to protect and improve public services like education, worker training and health care so we can create jobs and strengthen our economy. They propose balancing the budget by eliminating corporate tax loopholes that allow big corporations to pay less in taxes than middle-class families do, and increasing taxes on the wealthiest.

And it’s not Transportation… H. Res 96 just passed the House:

Resolved, That the following named Members be and are hereby elected to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
(1) COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY- Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Ms. Harman, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Norton, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Carney, Ms. Clarke, Ms. Richardson, Ms. Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Himes, Ms. Kilroy, Mr. Massa, Ms. Titus.

Via CAP, a study on the slow increase of union membership reveals that union membership has increased for the second year in a row, up to 12.4% nationwide. Connecticut is one of eleven states that have posted an increase in percentage of union jobs in recent years, rising from 16.4 to 16.9% since 2000.

There’s been a stand-off for some time, while the Governor and the legislative Democrats waiting for the other to be the first to raise the issue of taxes in the current budget crisis. Well, the standoff is over:

More revenue translates into a bid for higher taxes - something House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, suggested earlier in the day during a radio interview on WNPR.

“The wealthy as well as the average person needs to kick in,” Donovan responded to one caller’s question about potential tax increases. Donovan has long been a fan of a so-called millionaires tax and is a strong supporter of organized labor. (Via Brian Lockhart)

Wyman said the governor and legislators eventually will have to admit that a combination of tax increases and spending cuts are inevitable.

“They’re going to have to tighten their belts, and they’re going to have raise taxes,” Wyman said. (Via Capitol Watch)

But while Rell is putting on the “working together” hat…

“It has been very difficult,” she said. “I will be honest. I’ll say that over and over again. It’s been a very difficult process. … It’s going to be time for all of us to come together [as leaders] and act. And I think they all agree. There aren’t any great options in this budget.”

… she turns around and shows that some pretty right-wing instincts are under that moderate facade:

“I’m looking at everything we’ve done as a state in years past — what worked, what didn’t,” Rell said. “And all of them are on the table. And some of them will be in the budget.”

But not taxes?

“No taxes,” she said.

As the economy has worsened and revenue collections have fallen far below what state analysts feared, Rell said she has been forced to return to budget cuts that she had initially rejected. Some cuts that she had viewed as “no way, no how” are now in the mix. (Via The Courant)

This… is crazy. Democratic leaders are talking about using the full toolkit available to the government, and gearing up for a mix of approaches to repair the State’s ailing economy, while Rell’s solution is to take a buzzsaw to the State government – a cuts-only budget.

The Democrats have proposed doing the increases – and will take the political hit for it – because they understand that the government does a lot of things that people genuinely rely on. Rell is talking about straight-up amputation, when surgery and medicine are what we really need. Let’s hope that she can stow her right-wing theatrics before the process plays out – and if she can’t, that the Democrats can put a sane balanced budget together over her opposition.

In graphs:

Via Ezra Klein.

So, the Obama stimulus package, stripped down to win some Republican votes in Congress, won exactly zero Republican votes on the floor tonight.

That’s not a surprise: in fact, the only thing that’s surprising is that anyone would find it all that remarkable to begin with. It’s being written up everywhere, but I like Atrios’ take:

They’re a competing political party and they need to, you know, highlight the fact that their vision for America is actually different. I appreciate that members of both parties don’t always toe the line completely, but on a bill as big as this it makes perfect sense for it to play out as it did.

Of course the flip side is that Dems should’ve pushed the best plan that could pass the Senate instead of pushing some pointless fantasy about bipartisanship.

That “pointless fantasy” is of course alive in practically every nook and cranny of the Democratic Party: one State Rep that I was corresponding with recently cited “these non-partisan new times” as a reason to change some content on a Democratic website. My response was to say that I “hope Cafero and McKinney share your enlightened view when the end of the session comes around.”

But of course, they don’t, and at a certain point “hoping” for change to come is a lot less productive than using your political power (i.e. veto proof majorities) to simply make it happen. The reality is that, as it stands, the pretense of non-partisanship eats 90% of the time off of the clock, and by the time Democratic leadership is forced to get down to brass tacks, it’s relatively easy for the minority to just filibuster the rest of the majority’s legislative program away. It happens every time, and it’s utterly maddening.

Unless Connecticut’s State Legislators have some good reason to think the state budget process will go differently from the stimulus vote we just witnessed, they need to get their heads together and find the best plan that can get 24 votes in the Senate, and just make it happen. Yes, that gives whoever is likely to be that 24th vote more influence over the process than any of us might like, but that situation is going to be a lot better than negotiating away all of the priorities that 137 Democratic legislators just finished campaigning on, winding up with a mess, and taking 100% of the blame for it.

Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic shares this note from a Republican National Committee source that offers a peek at the larger issues at stake in this week’s RNC Chairman’s race:

Republican rules for the first time give the members of the Republican National Committee, by a 2/3 vote, the option of adopting a mandatory 2012 state primary election calendar.

States whose legislatures, which may be controlled by Democrats, refuse to schedule a primary that complies with RNC rules face a draconian choice.

Either their party gives up its presidential primary and instead holds (and pays for) a presidential preference caucus — or the state suffers a loss of 1/2 of its delegates to the 2012 Convention.

Many party leaders, who, for ideological or personal reasons, prefer a low-participation caucus rather than a higher-participation primary, see this Rule as a great opportunity to transform the party. (It would become more conservative.) [...]

So — the key factor in the RNC race is that the Rule must be presented to the RNC by a drafting committee largely appointed by the RNC Chairman and cannot be amended by the RNC membership.

Thus the new RNC Chairman could wield enormous power over the shape of the 2012 Presidential race and the composition of the 2012 convention which could adopt additional rules that would have even more impact on the future of the party.

This rule, incidentally, has already been passed, so all that’s left for the RNC members to decide is whose ox gets gored in 2012.

But the most fascinating part of this to me is how it drafts State legislatures into national-level politics: those States with a Democratic legislature are likely to either have fewer votes at the 2012 GOP convention, or the Republican parties in those states will see their bank accounts drained (and time wasted) by having to administer an election themselves. In this way, the national GOP is incentivizing success at the State legislative level, and scaling back the influence of more liberal States.

Of course, it creates a situation where the local parties are forced to dig a deeper hole for themselves financially where they have no control over the primary dates, but all of this seems to be a conscious decision that was laid out before the 2008 convention to change their process.

(The Democrats do something similar: additional delegates are awarded to those States with a strong percentage of voters going for the prior Democratic presidential candidate, and automatic bonuses are given to those states that schedule their primary at the end of the calendar.)

---

UPDATE: The actual election is on Friday, but check out this great, hands-on workshop that they’re offering tomorrow:

Awesome.

I noticed this a while back, but Colin McEnroe’s post brought it back to my attention: legislative staff salaries came out via an FOI request from Ken Dixon, and are viewable here.

Notable:

• House Democrats have $32K of staff costs per legislator.
• House Republicans have $70K of staff costs per legislator.
• Senate Democrats have $177K of staff costs per legislator.
• Senate Republicans have $213K of staff costs per legislator.

And fueling “McKinney Congressional Run” talk, angry former Shays staffer Brenda Kupchick has landed a job with the Senate Republican caucus. As the Republican caucuses keep shrinking, it’s notable whenever new staff come on, because the operation doesn’t really have any logical reason to expand – especially when the new staffers don’t come from the Hartford area, as most do.

So with that in mind, let me make a modest proposal: the legislature should establish a fixed per-legislator budget for the House and Senate caucus staffs, indexed to inflation (or, more entertainingly, to the current minimum wage). Caucuses should be able to allocate their staff budgets however they like – a few high-paid staffers, a vast army of low-paid ones, or anything in-between.

The current legislative salaries, if the FOI report is comprehensive, total up to $13.8 million. But setting a staff budget of $32,000 per House member and $177,000 per Senator would immediately save $2.5 million, and we’re looking for all the millions we can get in this difficult budget season.

---

UPDATE 1/28/09: Dixon posted the wages of the sessional employees as well, and if you total up the pay in each session (105 days in the odd-numbered years, 64 days in the even-numbered years), and divide by two for a yearly average, the staff costs change as follows:

• House Democrats have $32K $36.5K of staff costs per legislator.
• House Republicans have $70K $75.2K of staff costs per legislator.
• Senate Democrats have $177K $191.5K of staff costs per legislator.
• Senate Republicans have $213K $225.1K of staff costs per legislator.

The gap widens by about $2,000 per year on the House side, and closes by about $2,000 a year on the Senate side.

Some news on the wire:

Susan Bysiewicz accounces a gubernatorial exploratory committee: this Middletown Press article offers the most by way of insight into a platform (college affordability and open space), while the NH Register offered this quote:

Bysiewicz would not comment on Rell’s record or on other potential candidates, saying, “I think our state is facing huge challenges on many fronts, including the economy and health care. Home foreclosure rates are extremely high and home prices are out of sight for many people.

If a candidate for governor won’t comment on Rell’s record, we are in real trouble.

Republican media advisor Dean Pagani gets an interview with Dan Malloy – not a lot of new info, but a hint that he’ll be talking about DCF, one of a handful of more obscure areas that have an intense and self-organized community of advocates associated with it.

“Amann bid for governor still viable” – featuring this quote:

There are about 20 former legislators he can think of who are now working in the Capitol, Amann said. “No one raised an eyebrow about that,” he said. Amann, however, could not think of another person who took a job in the Capitol while seeking higher office.

Amann, who makes $60,000 a year working for the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Connecticut, said he is not independently wealthy and cannot run for governor without an additional job. “I also worked two jobs my entire career, not because I want to, but because I have to,” Amann said. “I wish I was a rich person like a Ned Lamont or a Jim Himes. And I’m not begrudging them — I just don’t have that luxury. I have to work.”

He added that the health insurance benefits from the advising job were more of an incentive than the six-figure salary. He is a cancer survivor and his wife has had a kidney transplant. Amann said his health insurance quote was $17,000, but later acknowledged that he can receive health benefits from his wife’s employer.

OK, so he cries poverty while putting down two other Democrats (no mention of multimillionaire Joe Lieberman), while he has a $60K job already, and a state pension, and a second income earner in the household. Then he disingenuously claims that he was after the $120K second job for the healthcare, using his cancer and his wife’s illness as political cover. That’s why Democrats “raised an eyebrow” about this ploy, and if it stopped there, it might be humorous. But because he was the point person on helping private industry keep wages and benefits low, it’s infuriating.

Phew. Also noted for the record, the Amann article features eight paragraphs of GOP Chair Chris Healy, and a single two-word quote from Dem Chair Nancy DiNardo.

Also of interest is this quote from the Bysiewicz article, by Amann:

Amann said he feels confident about the nomination, having received endorsements from union and local party leaders. But he said that while the party’s diversity is a strength, primary campaigns have hurt Democrats’ chances at reclaiming the governorship.

“We have not had a Democratic governor in almost 20 years and there’s a reason for it. It’s the same old thing we do to each other every time we run.” The last Democratic governor was William A. O’Neill, who served from 1980 to 1991.

Translation: I don’t appeal to Democrats on any of the things that they care about, but if they all vote for me anyway, I’ll be Governor.