CT Progressive

A quote from a Connecticut politician earlier in the week - which I haven’t been able to re-find, sadly - went along the lines of how we all have to sacrifice even though “there are very few individuals that are specifically responsible” for the financial crisis that we’re in. I remember that part of the line, because I immediately thought “Well, why don’t we find those people and make them sacrifice more?”

Seems like a couple members of the CT delegation are thinking the same way. Dodd gets busy at the negotiating table:

WASHINGTON — A provision buried deep inside the $787 billion economic stimulus bill would impose restrictions on executive bonuses at financial institutions that are much tougher than those proposed 10 days ago by the Treasury Department.

The provision, inserted by Senate Democrats over the objections of the Obama administration, is aimed at companies that have received financial bailout funds. It would prohibit cash bonuses and almost all other incentive compensation for the five most senior officers and the 20 highest-paid executives at large companies that receive money under the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. [...]

The pay restrictions resemble those that the Treasury Department announced this month, but are likely to ensnare more executives at many more companies and also to cut more deeply into the bonuses that often account for the bulk of annual pay.

The restriction with the most bite would bar top executives from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay. Any bonus would have to be in the form of long-term incentives, like restricted stock, which could not be cashed out until the TARP money was repaid in full.

The provision, written by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, highlighted the growing wrath among lawmakers and voters over the lavish compensation that top Wall Street firms and big banks awarded to senior executives at the same time that many of the companies, teetering on the brink of insolvency, received taxpayer-paid bailouts.

“The decisions of certain Wall Street executives to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers have seriously undermined public confidence,” Mr. Dodd said Friday. “These tough new rules will help ensure that taxpayer dollars no longer effectively subsidize lavish Wall Street bonuses.”

… while John Larson gets busy on the soapbox:

“We need new leadership on Wall Street, leadership of a higher caliber that can be trusted with taxpayer money. We need leadership that understands the value of a dollar to the average American. We need CEO’s that don’t spend obscene amounts of money on personal luxuries and bonuses while their actions have caused millions of Americans to lose their homes, their jobs and their health care.

“To date, few of those who got America into this economic crisis have been required to take responsibility for it. In fact, they have continued to make it absolutely clear that they are incapable of restoring the viability and integrity of our financial system. Therefore, it is time for the CEO’s of Wall Street’s crippled financial institutions to pack their bags and go.

Good stuff.

Matt at Hold Fast brings word of a new Progressive Caucus forming amongst the House Democrats, with CT-02 Representative Joe Courtney as a founding member.

Nothing against the old Progressive Caucus – in fact, I think I may have a Barbara Lee Speaks for Me bumper sticker kicking around somewhere – but they really were a weak, cash-strapped, and hopelessly disorganized bunch. Let’s hope for better things from the new caucus.

Update: They’re actually calling it the “Populist Caucus.” Whatever, so long as the job gets done. From Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa:

The Populist Caucus will make its first major play by advocating for the inclusion of a “Buy American” provision in the stimulus package. Fair trade, healthcare and middle-class tax policy will also dominate the caucus’ agenda, said Braley, a sophomore member.

If there’s anyone reading this that hasn’t been following the Federal “stimulus package” as it wends its way through the sausage factory in Congress, the Senate – led by Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins – removed a number of the beneficial items from the House version, and replaced them with (essentially) more tax benefits for the very wealthy.

Don Williams (a potential Gubernatorial candidate) has a couple of things to say about this development:

While final calculations are still being made, it is estimated that Connecticut could lose approximately $350 million if the new Senate version of the stimulus package replaces the original.

In a letter to Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd, Senator Williams writes, “Please reconsider the very harmful changes to the federal stimulus package proposed in the latest Senate version of the package. The elimination of crucial funding to support education, healthcare and information technology, alternative energy, and state budgetary assistance will have destructive consequences for Connecticut and the other forty-nine states.” [...]

“The changes in the Senate plan represent lost opportunities to put in place the resources that are critical to our economic recovery in the long term, and a loss of jobs and stimulus that are critical to the immediate economic survival of Connecticut families in the short term,” writes Senator Williams.

There’s a lot to criticize in Connecticut’s political media, but when something is worthy of praise…

This week’s Fairfield County Weekly seems to have stepped up the pace on the political reporting front, with a handful of stories that are refreshingly informative and detailed.

First, Cut and Run by Andy Bromage:

Like most Gulf War vets, the federal Veterans Administration refuses to test Sterry for exposure to depleted uranium or other chemical toxins she was exposed to in the Middle East.

So Sterry turned to the state government, and in 2005 helped Connecticut become the first state in the nation to craft a law to test returning combat troops for exposure to battlefield health hazards, including depleted uranium. The law would also establish a veterans health registry to catalog mysterious symptoms crippling war vets, similar to the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which tracks cancer patterns in the state. The data could be used as leverage to pressure the federal government to accept disabilities as service-related, and therefore treat them.

But the state has turned its back on Sterry and the more than 30,000 Connecticut troops who have deployed to combat zones in the Middle East and the Balkans since 1990. The Weekly has learned that Gov. Jodi Rell, through her budget office, quietly killed funding for the veterans health registry without telling the lawmakers who sponsored the program, nor the veterans whom it would serve. [...]

Linda Schwartz, commissioner of Veterans Affairs for the state, broke the news last week to the legislature’s Select Committee on Veterans Affairs during a special meeting at the Connecticut veterans’ home in Rocky Hill. Her budget was being cut, she said, and $165,000 of it would come from the sick-soldiers registry.

What she didn’t mention, and what some lawmakers were not aware of until very recently, was that the funding was eliminated last June during Gov. Rell’s first round of state budget cuts.

In fact, after four years of hearings, debates and lobbying, the program was just days away from receiving the money it needed to hire staff and begin testing. Funding was set for release on July 1, 2008. The governor’s office announced the cut on June 24.

Decoding Rob Simmons by Andy Bromage:

“In reading through the recent speech given to the new legislature, did you see any specific recommendations for dealing with this problem?” Simmons asks me in a recent interview. “Since then, have you heard any specific recommendations for dealing with this problem, other than taking a free day?”

Well, there was the governor’s cost-cutting plan recently approved by the legislature, I say.

“In this environment — in an environment of permanent fiscal crisis — these ideas have to be out there,” Simmons says. “It’s not good enough to surprise everybody in February.”[...]

It’s rare to hear Democrats go after Rell these days for fear of retaliation, let alone a Republican. Let alone a Republican who worked for Rell just a few weeks ago.

Simmons left that job early last month after Rell and the legislature essentially dissolved the Office of the Business Advocate as a cost-saving measure.

Now Simmons is in the market again but he wouldn’t tell me whether he’s interested in running for governor in 2010, or for Chris Dodd’s U.S. Senate seat, as has also been rumored.

Fact and Factions by Nick Keppler, an article about Bridgeport NAACP President (and former Shays GOTV worker) Craig Kelly:

One dispute has been about money. A letter from Dorothy Smith — to Kelly, the Executive Committee and state and national NAACP officials, dated Nov. 10, 2007 — complains that, unbeknownst to her, Kelly arranged to have money raised at the 2007 Freedom Fund Banquet, the branch’s largest yearly fund-raiser, deposited in a new account to which she did not have access. National officials told Kelly to close the account and put its funds in the general account. (Kelly confirms this series of events.)

[...]

Last November, Kelly was challenged for the presidency by Wayne Winston. It was not pretty.

On Nov. 13, 114 people who claimed to be members of the Greater Bridgeport NAACP voted at Messiah Baptist Church. Only 82 of the ballots were counted, and Kelly won 42-40.

Among the 32 people whose membership was challenged were such Bridgeport politicos as City Councilman Andre Baker, State Rep. Don Clemons and State Sen. Ed Gomes. Wayne Winston’s standing as a member was also challenged. All of them were denied by then-Secretary Carolyn Vermont, who was voted first vice president that evening under the slate headed by Kelly. She says those voters simply didn’t have their membership in order.[...]

Spearheaded by Winston and Cash — who lost the presidency and first vice presidency to Kelly and Vermont, respectively — 25 people signed a complaint to the national and state NAACP. Scot X. Esdaile, president of the Connecticut State Conference, and Rev. Gill Ford, regional director of the national NAACP, told the Connecticut Post the matter is resolved and Kelly is the victor. When the Weekly attempted to contact state and national officials about the issue, we were referred back to the Greater Bridgeport office.

Fabrizi Unleashed by Rob Sullivan:

Fabrizi also takes exception to Finch’s contention that one of the main reasons for the current budget mess is the former mayor’s excessive reliability on one-time revenue streams to balance the budget.

“When he came into office, there were two outstanding projects for which we were relying on revenue,” he says. “One was the $4.5 million payment from the Steel Point Developers and the other was $3 million from American Fabrics on Connecticut Avenue. Now, his administration wound up receiving $2 million for the American Fabrics location, which I never would have done. And for all his pointing and wagging his finger, he turned around and put the expected $4.5 million right back in the budget.”

That $4.5 million expected payment was included in the city’s budget, which was passed May 13. That payment was lost when Bridgeport and then–lead developer Midtown Properties of Manhattan missed a deadline for a land disposition agreement in late August. RCI Marine of Miami has since become the Steel Point project’s lead developer, and plans are underway for a smaller-scale version of the massive lead development project planned for the city’s East End.

In talking about Steel Point and other stalled development projects in the Park City, Fabrizi observes, “You have to be in constant contact with these developers. Obviously, that didn’t happen.”

I don’t know what led the Weekly to eat their Wheaties for this week’s edition, but these stories are a couple cuts above what we normally see on newsprint in the state. They get facts that can’t be found in any press releases, ask (and follow up on) detailed questions to people who are in a position to know the uncomfortable history of a situation, report on who wouldn’t answer which questions, and importantly, lay out compelling facts for people who are generally informed, and offer context for people who aren’t.

None of that should be remarkable, but all of it is. Let’s hope they keep it up.

FiveThirtyEight via CT Blue shows the bottom end of Democrats supporting Obama’s stimulus package. Note that two Republicans are actually more supportive of the Obama administration on the stimulus than Lieberman.

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.

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.

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.

Via Matt Browner-Hamlin, a press release from Senator Russ Feingold:

“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”

It’s an added bonus that the Chair of the Constitution Subcommittee is inclined to see the Constitution amended at all, an unfortunate rarity among Dems in recent years. More, please.