This Thursday, July 10th JOHN EDWARDS

Former U.S. Senator and Democratic VP candidate John Edwards will be in Hartford this Thursday, July 10th @ 11:45am at the Boys & Girls Club, 1 Nahum Drive. He will be hosting a press conference after a round table discussion with statewide political and community leaders. He will then travel to Bridgeport for an event @ 2pm at Steel Point (East Main Street & Stratford Avenue) right off of I-95. These 2 visits to CT are part of Edwards' new Half-In-Ten Campaign with the goal of reducing poverty in America by 50% within ten years.

In Connecticut, Senator Edwards is joining with Working Families, ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), CAHS (The Connecticut Association for Human Services) and countless other organizations to bring attention to policy solutions that can increase economic opportunity and reduce poverty Connecticut. Policies like raising the minimum wage and enhancing the Earned Income Tax Credit are just two ideas that can help improve living standards of Connecticut's low-wage workers.

For more information, contact CT Working Families @ (860) 523 1699.

Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Arch Free Tours on Thursdays

The Bushnell Park Foundation will once again be having free tours
of the Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Arch every Thursday from Noon -
1:30pm from now through October.

For more information, contact the Bushnell Park Foundation
at 860-232-6710.

Fuel Cell Locomotives - addressing two state priorities

In Today's Hartford Courant, the President of UTC's Power Corporation recommends that the state partner with its home-grown full cell industry. Fuel Cells are a green power generation technology with high wage jobs.

Clearly. the state can not just write a blank check to support our fuel cell companies, but we do need to be much more thoughtful and creative in assisting them. Recently, the Department of Public Utility & Control rejected a proposal for fuel cell electric generators because of the high costs that would be paid for by the rate payers. I agree that rate payers should not have to pay even higher electric prices to nurture this growing industry. However, the Department of Economic & Community Development, Connecticut Innovations, Inc could have assisted in funding these new fuel cell generators to make the DPUC request more affordable to the rate payers.

I have another suggestion that should be explored - fuel cell locomotives. The state wants to expand its commuter rail service. Ideally, we should have one seat rides that do not have the long delays caused by switching from diesel to electric service. Unfortunately, the Danbury, Waterbury & the New Haven to Springfield branch lines are not electrified like the main coastal one from the New York state line to the Rhode Island state line. The cost of doing so would be high and would take a long time. However, if we use fuel cell locomotives on the branch lines, including the Springfield to New Haven one, we do not have to electrify the line OR change locomotives to get to New York City.

Fuel Cell locomotives are in essence portable power generators. As such, they may also be eligible for homeland security funding as well as provide for emergency electric power when and where ever it is needed in CT.

Again, there must be strong safeguards for using state funds to support the fuel cell industry. But we have an opportunity to grow a clean, high wage industry and solve a transportation problem. We should explore this opportunity.

The future of the UCONN Health Center - What's in the Public's Interest?

The UCONN Health Center is in tough financial straits and has an old, small hospital. Prior to 1997, the federal government funded teaching hospitals like John Dempsey so well that the Health Center used the extra revenue to fund its academic & research programs. Since the federal Balanced Budget Act of that year, the Health Center's finances have been precarious. There was a bailout of the Health Center in the early 2000s, but no systematic increased state support for its academic and research programs.

As a result, the Health Center last year came up with the idea of building a much bigger hospital whose revenues would be used to subsidize the academic and research activities. This caused, understandably, strong opposition among the non-profit hospitals in the Greater Hartford area. Most of these hospitals are in precarious financial circumstances themselves and they viewed a bigger John Dempsey Hospital as draining more of their profitable, private pay patients from the wealthier suburbs.

There are several options offered by the CT Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE) to address the Health Center's need for a replacement hospital. But the CASE report also stressed the continuing need of state support for the Health Center's academic & research programs. I believe that the Executive Branch whether OPM, DSS, the Office of Health Care Access should be directly involved in the recommended negotiations between the Health Center and the Greater Hartford non-profit hospitals on how a replacement hospital on the grounds of the UCONN Health Center should be set up and administered.

The UCONN Health Center and the John Dempsey Hospital have really not significantly assisted the state in solving its health care problems - whether smoking cessation, the need for more doctors & dentists to take HUSKY patients, child obesity, etc. Partly, this is the fault of the General Assembly. Most of the oversight of the Health Center has been by the Higher Education Committee and the Higher Education Subcommittee of Appropriations - not the Public Health or Human Services Committee (the latter handles the DSS administered HUSKY program). We need to put the Health Center & Hospital on solid financial footing, but in doing so we must see whether their missions need to be more focused on addressing the state's public health needs.

For example, we could stabilize the UCONN Health Center's finances by directing a portion of the annual Tobacco Settlement money there. In exchange, the Health Center could provide smoking cessation and other smoking related health services to Medicaid recipients (the reason CT got the Tobacco Settlement $ was the costs to the Medicaid program caused by smoking).

UCONN Health Center and John Dempsey Hospital are public assets. In whatever the state does to address their finances, the need to protect and advance the interests of the public must be the utmost priority.

Funding Non-Profits Smarter

There is no doubt that the Executive Branch and the Legislature have seriously underfunded the non-profits organizations which provide so many social and other services to CT residents.

The increases they have received in the last decade or more are below the inflation rate and far below the increases in health insurance and energy costs. They are in dire shape. But to really address this issue in a thoughtful, long-term way we need to do much more than just give them money. As a practical matter, given the state's spending cap and the other demands on state dollars, CT can not give the non-profits the kind of increases in funding they need to stabilize their operations. We need to fund them smarter. We need to assist them with their cost drivers such as health care and energy and incentivize them into working together/consolidating back-room operations/expenses whenever possible.

For example, the state subsidizes a big variation among the non-profits concerning health insurance. Some non-profit employees are on the state's HUSKY program because their non-profit can not provide affordable, comprehensive health insurance. Many are simply too small to get private health insurance at a reasonable cost. Other non-profits provide decent health insurance, but are hard-pressed. They must ask employees for higher co-pays and premiums or little to no wage increases in order to do so.

Instead, since many of these non-profits mostly/exclusively provide state services with state funding we should find a way to bring them into the state employee health care pool. Candidly, this is easier said then done because of the diversity of the non-profit community and the variation in health insurance they provide and how much it costs them. But if we can find a way to do so, we can provide them with decent health insurance at an affordable price. The state employee plan (actually, there are several plans provided by several private health insurance companies) is comprehensive and has not had the huge annual increases that non-profits have faced. If the non-profits which can not afford health insurance for their workers, this will allow them to attract and keep good employees. For those which already provide decent health insurance going into the state health insurance pool should allow them to do so at a lower cost and/or with lower annual increases.

The State should also use its purchasing power to assist non-profits with their energy costs. Again, since these non-profits are providing state services with state dollars, the State is already, albeit indirectly, paying for their energy costs - just very inefficiently.

However, before we assist them with the capital costs of weatherization, getting more efficient lighting and heating infrastructures, etc. we need to get more information on the non-profits. Are there too many stand-alone buildings? Are they in the right locations? Can multiple non-profits be co-located to save money and provide better services to the state resident they serve? We don't know the answers right now. The Departments of Developmental Services, Mental Health & Addiction Services & Social Services should assess all the non-profits they fund and share the information among them to figure out the best way to proceed.

Finally, we should incentivize non-profits to combine non-direct care services whenever possible.
Personnel, Legal, Custodial, Repair and even Executive Director services may be able to be shared among non-profits especially if we can get them to co-locate. We are subsidizing a lot of costly inefficiency.

Does that mean every non-profit can be co-located have all its back office operations shared with other non-profits? Of course NOT. For some services provided for some state residents this may be inappropriate, inefficient or unacceptable. But, we won't know until we ask the questions and challenge the non-profit community.

Just like we must incentivize municipalities and boards of education to share services between and among them to achieve economies of scale whenever possible and appropriate, we must do so with the non-profit community. We can not afford to do otherwise.

New Report finds sharp increase in Employers Health Care Costs

A new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis finds a sharp increase in employers’ health costs - with wide variations by occupation and establishment size.

Employers who provide health care to their workers saw their costs climb to an average of $2.59 per hour in 2005 -- nearly a full dollar higher than the cost just six years earlier, according to a new KaiserFamily Foundation study examining employers’ payroll and health care costs.

Health costs for employers offering coverage consume an increasing share of overall payroll, with the median cost of health coverage as a share of payroll rising from 8.2 percent in 1999 to 11percent in 2005.

The new analysis, part of the Foundation’s Snapshots: Health Care Costs series, also finds a wide range of health care expenses across businesses by occupation and establishment size and shows the increasing burden that health-care costs place on employers and workers nationally. It is available at: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm030808oth.cfm

A new analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation examines changes in wages and benefits over time, and finds that health benefit costs paid by employers increased from 0.6 percent of GDP in 1960 to 4.1 percent in 2006.

During the same period, wages fell as a share of employee compensation, which remained generally stable as a share of GDP over the period.

The analysis, part of Kaiser's online Snapshots: HealthCare Costs series, concludes that one way working families may feel the impact of rising health care costs is through smaller increases intheir paychecks. It is available at http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm012808oth.cfm

Organized Workers in U.S. increased in '07

For the first time in years organized labor has some numbers to be happy about.

According to a new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership went up in 2007 by .1 percent. According to the Bureau, it is the first time since 1983 that union membership rates have increased.

The unionized workforce is now 12.1 percent, up by nearly 310,000 members. Women saw the biggest increase of workforce representation, climbing from 10.9 percent in 2006 to 11.1 percent. The rate of men joining labor unions remained mostly unchanged.

From Workers Independent News Service
What is WIN? The Workers Independent News (WIN) is the only nationwide radio news service that focuses on the issues and concerns of working families and their labor unions. WIN provides an alternative to corporate media and brings the concerns of working people to the airwaves. WIN is heard on commercial and non-commercial radio stations nationwide, every business day, and online at www.LaborRadio.org.

The first empirical study of the social and economic impact of multi-use trails in the Farmington Valley was recently completed by the Farmington Valley Trails Council. Below is the conclusion of the study. For a complete copy of the report, contact R. Bruce Donald, President of the Farmington Valley Trails Council: president@fvgreenway.org.

Conclusions

Comparing and contrasting other studies to the results of the Trail Utilization Study Analysis of the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail, Simsbury, Connecticut provided an opportunity to verify the economic impacts on the regional economy. In a full cycle of seasons covering a year, the trail attracted 110,000 visits and generated conservatively four to almost seven million dollars in revenues for Simsbury and the Farmington Valley of Connecticut. Additionally, it is a proven fact that home values rise and sales quicken when adjacent to a bike trail.

However, there is much more than just economic value in the trail system that encompasses the FCHT, (which is part of the East Coast Greenway) and the Farmington River Trail. There is the obvious health and recreational benefit. There is a very real boost to the towns involved which are able to provide such an amenity. Local residents are proud of their trail system, not only for themselves and their health, but as an advertising feature for the tourism industry of the area. The Farmington Valley Region is full of history, culture, and scenery. This group of both suburban and more rural communities has always been an attractive tourist attraction for people from all over the country to visit. The multi-use trail system however, is proving to be a huge draw. These linear greenways built on unused railroad corridors now play an important role in connecting communities. They certainly enable users to access the area on foot or bike and explore the scenic and historic landmarks. But perhaps more importantly they allow commutation to and from work, and the ability to undertake short trips in safety for the user and the environment. The trail system within the Farmington Valley can truly now be called a proven resource that enhances the region in many positive ways.

The Coalition for a Safe & Healthy Connecticut and its national allies have released the results of testing 1,200 of the most popular children's toys for toxic chemicals.

You can see the results on its website: http://www.healthytoys.org. It was developed to better inform consumers about toy purchases, and to encourage parents to urge the government to take action.

You may also wish to check out two other websites on toxic toys: www.protect-our-kids.org and www.stoptoxicimports.org.

New Internet Tool for Executive Pay Comparisons

Last week, the Securities & Exchange Commission launched its first-ever on-line tool that enables investors to compare what the top executives of the 500 largest American companies get paid. The Executive Compensation Reader builds on the SEC's new requirements that went into affect this year to enhance clarity and completeness of executive compensation disclosure.


http://www.sec.gov/xbrl

A new study recently released by John Logan, a lecturer at the London School of Economics, points out that the intensity of employer opposition and government hostility to collective bargaining in the United States is unique among developed nations.

This “repressive character of U.S. labor law, which allows free rein to anti-union employers,” not only hurts workers in the United States and in other nations, Logan said today.

There is growing evidence that consultants, employer groups and multinational corporations are exporting U.S.-originated anti-union strategies to other developed countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland and to transforming countries such as China.

Strengthening the right to organize and bargain collectively through the Employee Free Choice Act would benefit not only American workers, but also workers in other nations.

Logan’s report, Unions Facing Hard Times: The Global Crisis in Union Collective Bargaining, shows that Sweden has the highest rate of union membership with 80 percent, while the United States trails at the bottom with 12 percent. Click here to download a copy of the report (PDF).

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Hartford Courant
December 13, 2007

Airport Congestion Creates Opening

Connecticut has a great opportunity to take advantage of air-traffic congestion problems around New York and New Jersey airports — if we act boldly by expanding air service from Bradley International Airport and build a rail link to the airport from the Springfield-to-New Haven line.

There is simply too much air traffic for JFK, LaGuardia and Newark airports to handle. All suffer from chronic flight delays. Instead of trying to increase the number of flights at these busy airports, the effort should be to reduce the demand. One way would be to increase air service from Bradley.

Now that Bradley has international service, we should try to grow the business and attract more travelers from New York and New Jersey. We can do this most effectively by running a rail line to Bradley and start running trains from Manhattan to Bradley. Not only would this make it convenient for New York and New Jersey airline passengers to get to Bradley, we would make the region more attractive to the business community by providing a one-seat, less-than-two-hour train ride from Bradley/Hartford to New York City.

David McCluskey State Representative D-West Hartford
The writer is co-chairman of the General Assembly's transportation bonding subcommittee.

CT should lead & create a NY/NY/New England Commuter & Freight Rail Authority

I commend Governor Rell for exploring the opportunity of running commuter rail service into Penn Station, NYC. Our main challenge is getting cooperation from AMTRAK, which operates Penn Station and owns the Hells Gate Rail Line from the New Haven Line into Penn.

The advantages of having such service are many. It would allow CT commuters easier access to the west side of Manhattan which is targeted for significant growth. More significantly, we could use existing rail cars/locomotives such as those which run on the New Jersey Transit Line - instead of our unique M-8/current New Haven Line rail cars which are the only ones in the world I believe which run on both overhead AC line and third rail DC line. If we could get AMTRAK approval, we could start such a service faster than we will get the new M-8 rail cars from Kawasaki. We should work with our Federal Delegation to aggressively pursue this Penn Station option.

But we need to think even bigger and bolder - a NJ/NY/New England Commuter & Freight Rail Authority to coordinate and accelerate rail development in the region. NJ Transit, the MTA and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority are expanding their rail systems. New Hampshire has just established a Rail Transit Authority to reestablish passenger service to Boston. Connecticut is in the middle of most of this activity and we should move aggressively to connect the dots. Just as the MTA is working on a rail connection to the Stewart International Airport in Orange County - 1 seat, 75 minute trip from Penn Station, we need to get Hartford and its airport, Bradley connected to the rest of this growing rail service NOW. The best way to revitalize Hartford is to connect it to our nation's economic capital - NYC - with a one seat ride in less than 2 hours.

Again, this is not easy since AMTRAK once again owns the rail line from Springfield to New Haven. The line is mostly single track, old, not-electrified and has too many at-grade rail crossings. But CT could take the lead and buy/lease double-decker passenger cars from New Jersey Transit or from one of the manufacturers. Within the next several years, diesel/overhead electric locomotives will be available which will allow a one seat ride from Hartford/Bradley Airport to Penn Station.

Now that Governor Rell has asked Pitney Bowes Chair/CEO Michael Critelli to head a DOT Reorganization Taskforce, CT must step up its efforts to get out of our economic cul de sac by working with our surrounding states in reestablishing our commuter and freight rail service.

Legislature needs to establish a uniform investigatory process

Having served on at least three investigatory inquiries (the CRRA and the Lisa Moody ones in the Government Administration and Elections Committee and the I-84 DOT Construction one in the Transportation Committee), I believe that the General Assembly MUST develop a format to properly do investigations. In most circumstances, this format should be as bi-partisan as possible.

I believe whenever an Executive Branch investigation is authorized, usually by the Chairs of the Committee of cognizance, that a formalized process should kick in. Partisan and non-partisan staff should be specifically assigned to work on the inquiry. The Program Review and Investigations Committee (PRI)'s staff and expertise should be utilized as well as that of the Office of Legislative Research and the State Auditors. Often times, PRI and the Auditors have already done basic reviews of the state agency in question that would help with the inquiry.

Too often the legislators in such investigatory hearing lack the specific knowledge of the agency, how it works and what the normal business practices are in that field (e.g. how transportation construction contracting works). As a result, value time is lost with bringing legislators up-to-speed in the middle of the investigation. The Legislature is supposed to be a check on the Executive Branch, but right now our ability to conduct oversight and investigations is too limited and unfocused.

It MIGHT be the case that the Legislature should revise the mission of the Program Review and Investigations Committee so that its regular agency/program studies are driven by the Leadership of the 4 legislative caucuses. We MAY wish to better coordinate PRI's work with that of the State Auditors and the new Appropriations Subcommittee on Results-Based Budgeting so that each can support and learn from the others efforts.

The Public should have confidence that the Legislature can and will effectively investigate allegations of wrong-doing in the Executive Branch agencies. The General Assembly must restructure and standardize its inquiry process so that this important check in the constitutional framework can be accomplished.

Need for a new Progressive Coalition

When I first became involved in progressive/Democratic politics in the 1980s, there was a vibrant coalition of progressive organizations called LEAP - Legislative Electoral Action Program.

It began, I recall, as a reaction to the election of Ronald Reagan as President and the ascendancy of the conservative movement. For a mulititude of reasons, LEAP is no longer with us. As a result, it is much more difficult to move a progressive agenda both in elections and in the General Assembly. There are very real legal and other limitations for 501Cs like the Universal Health Care Foundation or One Connecticut to build the kind of grass roots activism statewide needed to pass difficult, broadsweeping legislation like Health Care for All.

Many of the leaders of LEAP are no longer in charge of their respective organizations - we lost Gerry Springer from the AFT CT, Jerry Brown & Merilee Milstein are no longer in charge of 1199, Phil Wheeler retired from UAW and Steve Perruccio just left CEUI. We need to think of rebuilding the progressive coalition. It may not end up being a formal organization like LEAP. Our culture, workforce, politics and technology have continued to change/evolve. We need to tap into the energy of the internet/bloggers, we need to involve the Lamont campaign volunteers.

Welcome

Greetings from CT State Representative David McCluskey (Democrat-West Hartford) !

I am serving my 5th term from the 20th District which is in the southern section of the town including Elmwood. I will be seeking re-election this year as a clean elections candidate.

I serve on the Finance and the Transportation Committees.

I am also House Chair of the Transportation Bonding SubCommittee which has worked to rebuild our public transportation system,focus on "fix it first" not new highways, roads and encourage bike and pedestrian travel, and coordinate land use/economic development/transportation development.

I am a progressive, pro-labor Democrat and thought I would use this blog to pass along news and views.

I will try to keep the site fresh with news/information and try to offer more commentary/observations on CT Politics & Government.