What For, Foley?

Most people in Connecticut who still get their news from newspapers, an ever diminishing number, have never attended a press conference.

Sometimes an unexpected rumpus enlivens the event. At a conference launching a study released by the Connecticut Policy Institute (CPI), one reporter, having been upstaged by a questioner, reminded all present, around thirty curious onlookers, that HE was a member of the press and thereafter left the room huffily, his neck stretched out like a cobra’s.

“Who was that? “asked several people who had not had the pleasure of making his acquaintance.  “I hope he’s alright?”

Tom Foley, a Republican running for governor, was at the event lending unction to the presentation. In brief stories filed the same day, it was noted by virtually every reporter that CPI had been financed by Mr. Foley. This was not news to anyone in the room, including the cobra who departed in a vaporous cloud of righteous indignation, although it may surprise some to learn that apart from providing seed money to CPI in 2011, Mr. Foley has made no further contributions to the organization -- which is financially independent of him.

No matter, the old news dominated most stories. The substance of the presentation was touched upon only fleetingly – which was a pity because the report was carefully researched and contained data that signaled a new turn for some Republican gubernatorial hopefuls.

Most post-event questions centered upon the gubernatorial horse race and possible campaign finance indiscretions. Since Mr. Foley had fathered CPI, had he perhaps crossed some line of demarcation relating to campaign finance laws?

In every news report – Connecticut Commentary examined five -- a new “W” was added to the usual five reportorial “W’s” --   Who, What, Where, When, and Why. The sixth “W” was “What for?”

Many reporters thought they knew what the presentation was for: It was to promote Mr. Foley’s gubernatorial campaign and, in their dispatches, some aggrieved left of center reporters proceeded to give Mr. Foley “What For.”

The comprehensive eighty three page report covered four areas:  Jobs, Crime, Housing and Education.

Under the heading “Urban Jobs Policy,” the report, which was developed over a period of six months and relied heavily on data gathered from Connecticut businesses, teachers, relevant experts in various fields, law enforcement officials and others, made six proposals: 1) Urban tax breaks awarded proportionally to the number of jobs created should be made available to more employers; 2) specific urban areas should be exempted from municipal regulations, which in turn should be replaced with a model municipal code enforced by the state; 3) customized workforce training programs should be made available to any employers willing to locate in a Connecticut city; 4) Tweed or Sikorsky airport should be expanded to provide more convenient access to the New Haven/Bridgeport area; 5) urban areas should be made more livable and enticing through the improvement of parks, waterfronts and other public spaces; and 6) regional small business incubators should be created for every major urban area in Connecticut.

The most intriguing policy prescription for reducing urban crime involved the adoption of a recidivism reduction program that relies on “Swift, Certain, and Short” punishment meted out to probation or parole violators. The program, hugely successful in reducing recidivism in Hawaii by 55 percent, immediately re-incarcerates for no longer than four days all probation and parole violators.

The section of the CPI report dealing with proposals to close Connecticut’s achievement gap through public school choice alone runs to twenty pages

Unfortunately, the substance of the report took up only a few sentences in hybrid stories that focused on the political ramifications of CPI’s “Urban Policy Project.” The truncated “Who, What, When, Where and Why” were entirely subordinated to the expansive “What For.”

It was V. I. Lenin, a superb journalist and pamphleteer, who said that if you label a program or person effectively, you don’t have to argue with it or him. In filing their stories, most left of center reporters in the state relied on the assumption that if they could tie the CPI report to Tom Foley, they needn’t disclose or discuss its substance.

Questioned by reporters, James Hallinan, a Democratic Party spokesman who had attended the presentation, said that, although he hadn’t had time to read the report, he was certain it was a political gimmick.

“This is purely political,” said the Malloy flack, “and I think he made that clear.”  It was not exactly clear who had made it clear that the report was purely a political document.

“Come now,” one reporter replied, “You were in the room, you heard the presentation. There are some pretty good ideas in there. You must have some response to it.”

 “No,” said the laconic Mr. Hallinan, “Not yet.”

Asked about the political ramifications of the report he had presented, Ben Zimmer remarked, “In Connecticut and across the country, too often when we’re thinking about policy, it becomes submerged into the lens of politics.”

In some other room in the Legislative Office Building, a labeler was busily preparing labels -- and press releases.

The report, which contains usable ideas that very well might appear in Republican campaigns, is available at the CPI site.

Is Anyone Home?

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA), it must be admitted, knows a thing or two about Connecticut’s businesses and industries – perhaps even more than members of the state’s General Assembly, a majority of whom regularly pass bills and restrictions on companies in Connecticut, sometimes heedless of the real-world unintended consequences of such legislation.

CBIA, one of the largest statewide business organizations in the country, boasts 10,000 member companies. In business for more than 175 years, CBIA represents the collective voice of Connecticut’s industries crying in a parched wilderness.

A few weeks ago, John Rathgeber, CBIA’s CEO, was invited by The Connecticut Policy Institute to speak to a group at the United Health Care headquarters in Trumbull about the state of the state – not good – and suggested course corrections. Mr. Rathgeber is unfailingly polite, soft spoken and a superb business analyst. Asked whether he is making any headway against Connecticut’s hostile business climate, he smiles wanly and hints some progress is being made: “It is still not too late for Connecticut to change directions.”

Hope springs eternal, even from the ashes, but a general survey of the state of the state of Connecticut by Forbes magazine that pulled together in one spot most of the depressing data boiling for  two decades on the state’s back burners -- “How Did Rich Connecticut Morph Into OneOf America's Worst Performing Economies?” -- presented a uniformly dreary picture of Connecticut’s trajectory from its post income tax period forward towards a doubtful future.

Among other blots on Connecticut’s future, Forbes noted that:

“Connecticut has run up the fourth largest pile of debts per capita — $27,540. This includes unfunded liabilities for government employee pension funds.  The total is almost double the per capita debts of financially-strapped California.  Higher debts imply higher taxes in the future…

“Barron’s considered Connecticut to be in the worst financial shape – with debt and pension liabilities a higher percentage of GDP (17.1) than any other state…
“Connecticut has one of the worst business climates in the country.  Factors affecting a state’s business climate include the individual income tax, corporate income tax, sales tax, property tax, unemployment insurance tax and security of private property.  For example, as the Tax Foundation reported, “Connecticut imposed a temporary 20 percent surtax on top of its flat 7.5 percent corporate income tax, in effect raising its rate to 9 percent. This 20 percent surcharge is an increase on a supposedly temporary 10 percent surcharge that has been in place since 2009.

“The American Legislative Council, in its annual Rich States, Poor States study, ranks states two ways – economic performance and economic outlook.  The economic performance ranking is based on a state’s GDP trend, migration trend (in or out) and non-farm payroll enrollment trend.   The economic outlook ranking is based on 15 factors, including the top marginal personal income tax rate, the top marginal corporate income tax rate, property tax burden, estate tax burden, public employees per 100,000 population, state liability system survey and whether a state has a right-to-work law.  Connecticut is ranked #46 for economic performance and #43 for economic outlook.”

Space permits only a partial listing of the state’s deficiencies mentioned in the Forbes report.

Mr. Rathgeber also touched some of the same sore points in his remarks; indeed, much of the statistical data reported by Forbes appeared in one form or another in earlier reports issued by CBIA and other commentators.

Mr. Rathgeber’s CPI address may be found in full here.

Following the Forbes report, editorial optimists at a Hartford paper noted that while the data presented a uniformly bleak picture, there were some bright splotches of sunlight piercing the darkness: 

“There's more to any state's economy than its business climate. In June, the Social Science Research Council ranked Connecticut best in the nation in terms of overall well-being, including income, health and education. The Economist magazine's Human Development Index ranks Connecticut the best of all states. The NBC subsidiary iVillage year ranked our state the top for women.”

Asked what it would take to convince progressive Democrats in the General Assembly and Connecticut’s left of center media that a major course correction is necessary to pull the state from its death spiral, Mr. Rathgeber’s answer was so soft and gentle that it may do no more than tickle the ears of legislators who long have been committed to the proposition that repeated increases in revenue – rather than significant cuts in spending – is the all-purpose solution to Connecticut’s downward plunge.

“It may take a burning bridge.”

Maybe, just maybe, the airplane has to crash into the mountain – Detroit-like – before other sleepy commuters shake off their lethargy, read correctly the signs of the times, and plot a future course-correction that squarely addresses real ameliorative action leading to lower spending, an end to crony-phony capitalism, lower cost and higher quality elementary school education – to avoid remedial reading and math classes in college – general reductions in state mandates and regulations that compel businesses to jack up prices that make Connecticut entrepreneurs uncompetitive in a global marketplace and – the kicker -- the privatization of appropriate state functions to lower fixed costs paid through ever increasing taxes that de-simulate Connecticut’s once thriving economy.

Jobs and Connecticut’s recovery will not come from a reinvention of Connecticut’s economic wheel, a fantasy of ambitious self-promoting politicians. It is far easier to produce jobs from the state’s present businesses, Mr. Rathgeber said. And this can be done through permanent tax reductions and a steady, determined deregulatory process that will snap the chords with which Connecticut has bound its business Gulliver for the past three decades.   

Who within the General Assembly will burn the bridge and commit Connecticut to a more prosperous – albeit, a less political advantageous -- course of action?

It would take only a few men and women of courage to restore the state’s past and reset the state’s future.