A matter of justice, and an economic necessity

By DAN MALLOY

“Although demand for coverage is rising, the state’s social services commissioner told legislators Tuesday that the Rell administration wants to shut down a toll-free phone line that provides information about the HUSKY health care program for low-income children and their families.”

– CT Mirror, Phone line for low-income insurance information a target of budget cuts, 2/24/10

And so began yesterday’s news piece about cutting the HUSKY Information Line, which last year “helped 725 children get their prescriptions, helped 4,500 people find a doctor who accepts HUSKY and helped expedite coverage for 1,600 people” according to the Mirror.

Why is it so difficult for the current administration to understand that investing in a quality public health system, including access to healthcare, is not only a matter of justice, but an economic necessity? Indeed, if we have learned nothing from the current national health care debate, it’s that our economy loses hundreds of billions of dollars every year because of the weakened health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. That’s why in 2006 I introduced a formal plan to provide health insurance for every single child in Connecticut, as a first step toward universal health care for everyone in the state.  And it’s why I’ve continued talking about healthcare in my conversations with citizens in Connecticut:

Plenty of evidence exists showing why cutting HUSKY programs like Info Line costs us all. In their comprehensive budget analysis released this month, CT Voices for Children said this of Governor Rell’s proposed cuts to HUSKY:

“Cuts to HUSKY are penny wise and pound foolish, particularly in this environment. Preventive care through HUSKY can help reduce costs for the entire health care system….

Experience in Connecticut and other states has shown that decreasing outreach and increasing out-of-pocket costs for families may save the state money in the short run, but the savings come as a result of keeping eligible children and parents from applying for coverage and getting needed care. In addition, these reductions in coverage are likely to shift costs to families and other parts of the health care system when people seek care from safety net providers and emergency departments. “

Balancing the budget on the backs of uninsured children is wrong, risks poorer health outcomes, and unnecessarily costs Connecticut taxpayers.

We must do better.

Already talking about the E-word

By TEAM MALLOY STAFF

Was it really only a year a half ago when Sarah Palin was introduced to the American electorate? For us political junkies, it was a mesmerizing presidential campaign, punctuated by the emergence of a vice presidential candidate hailing from the unlikeliest of places–Wasilla, Alaska.

It didn’t take long for the national conversation to turn to the question of Palin’s experience.

Respected political journalists on the right (George Will, Impulse, Meet Experience) and on the left (Maureen Dowd, Vice in Go-Go Boots?) weighed in, and it wasn’t all that flattering.  Even Facebook got in the act–the page I Have More Foreign Policy Experience than Sarah Palin grew to 220,904 members. And then there were the likes of Jon Stewart and Tina Fey satirizing Palin’s experience.

Amidst the sometimes irreverent debate, some serious questions were being asked (and answered) about the kind of experience needed to govern effectively.

Here is David Brooks from his column on Palin, Why Experience Matters:

“It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.

What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.

How is prudence acquired? Through experience.”

This week, our statewide conversation on who should be the next governor of Connecticut took a new turn, as Ned Lamont declared his candidacy for Governor.

And already the conversation has turned to Ned’s experience, qualifications, and, in turn, ideas:
•    Does business experience translate into the ability to govern? (Brian Lockhart, Connecticut Post)
•    What to get the candidate who has everything: A point (Editorial, Journal-Inquirer)

David Brooks was right–governance is hard. And the Journal-Inquirer was right, too, when they said this of Dan Malloy back in November:

“He is an experienced and successful executive. He turned a broken city into a glistening one. Is being a big-city mayor a lot like being a governor? Yeah, it is. Is being a legislator or businessman a lot like being a governor? No.”

Fast forward two centuries: Fairness to workers still matters

By DAN MALLOY

The timing and the setting were fitting, and even rather serendipitous.

Last week’s announcement by New Britain and Berlin municipal leaders stating their commitment to “electing me as Connecticut’s next Governor” occurred in New Britain.  “The Hardware City,” as it is known, has a rich history as a manufacturing hub and was once a focal point of the burgeoning organized labor movement in the late 19th century. A place where labor leaders advocated for fair wages and equitable labor conditions for workers in Connecticut and around the country.  A place where much of this advocacy still continues.

Fast forward two centuries: Standing up for working families is still not only the right thing to do, but good public policy.

On Monday, I issued this statement reaffirming my long standing belief that Connecticut employers should provide paid sick leave to their employees.  I disagreed with Ned Lamont on this issue, which you can read more about here.

32BJ SEIU Connecticut State Director Kurt Westby said it best in his statement:

“Does Ned Lamont really believe that Connecticut doesn’t need a paid sick leave policy? Too many workers are forced to choose between going to work sick or losing a pay day. As a result, too many working men and women put off seeing a doctor or taking their kids to one because they can’t take off from work. Not only is this situation bad for sick workers and their families, but it puts other workers and the public at risk of contracting infectious illnesses.  32BJ is fighting for paid sick leave in Connecticut because it is critical to keeping our state and our economy healthy.”

Fairness still matters.

This week, I also voiced my support for the Connecticut’s State Police captains and lieutenants, who are seeking to join the Connecticut State Police Commissioned Officers union.

I’m grateful to the leaders of New Britain and Berlin for their support. You can watch the highlights of their announcement here:

A Vote For Dan Malloy

By JOHN MCNAMARA

(cross-posted at the NB Politicus)

In 2010 Democrats need a gubernatorial nominee who has the best chance of winning an office not held by the majority party in 20 years. The open seat for Governor has spawned a number of Democratic hopefuls, all of whom offer impressive credentials from local and state government and the business world. The choice boils down to an individual who can inspire rank and file Democrats and who demonstrates a capacity to govern that will translate into significant support from independent voters in a year when the electorate wants an end to State Capitol gridlock.

Dan Malloy, who led Connecticut’s fourth largest city for 14 years, is a seasoned and capable elected official who has credentials to navigate the state out from under its systemic fiscal problems. A Governor Malloy can restore public confidence in the Governor’s office. He offers an energetic approach to job creation, transportation, education and housing. His record in Stamford in those areas may be the best indication voters have as to what could happen throughout the state.

For months Malloy has been providing compelling reasons for Democrats to support him. A former prosecutor, Malloy is a feisty candidate who will take on the drivel that will come out Foley or whoever the GOP nominates. He favors the Citizen’s Election Program and a fair system of public financing. The suggestion by some that deep pockets are a prerequisite for a Democrat to win is a democracy-killing idea. We don’t need local reinforcement of the U.S. Supreme Court decision to completely turn the country over to the fat cats.

Malloy, as are other Democrats pursuing the office, strongly advocates for health care reform, including the health care partnership pooling bill that would have saved consumers and cities and towns many millions of dollars had it not died by the Governor’s pen in 2009. That’s about a million bucks in savings for New Britain.

On the economy, Malloy has offered sound criticism of a moribund Rell administration with a call for a more expeditious use of federal Recovery Act funds. On job creation, a Governor Malloy would streamline the alphabet soup of state economic development agencies that could use both cost-saving consolidation and marching orders from an engaged Governor.

There is a clarity of purpose to Malloy’s candidacy in 2010. He’s put in the sweat equity to earn the support of Democrats who backed DeStefano in 2006. A testament to the clarity is that he would be in the race whether the heavily-favored Republican incumbent was in it or not. After 20 years out of the corner office, the Democrats need a candidate who can inspire our base and expand support to unaffiliated voters in 2010. Malloy has shown the drive and commitment to be that candidate.