Caruso’s High (Tax) Note

OP-ED: It’s Budget Day In Connecticut
by Jonathan Pelto | February 4, 2009 12:40 PM
Posted to Opinion | State Capitol

It’s Budget Day in Connecticut … a day when each and every person who is concerned about state government turns their attention to Hartford. With great fanfare, pomp, and circumstance, the sitting governor enters a joint session of the Connecticut General Assembly and lays out their budget proposal.

Today, it is Governor M. Jodi Rell’s turn and she has spent months preparing for this moment. Like any proposed budget, today’s document is a comprehensive blueprint for the state for the next two years and, at the same time, a unique political statement and document.

As budget proposals go, this one is far more on the “political document side” of the spectrum then anything we’ve seen in Connecticut — perhaps in living memory.

In her address to the State on Monday night, Rell began her speech by introducing her upcoming budget by saying…

“It is a budget that sets a fundamentally new vision for state government.

A smaller government.

A less expensive government.

A more efficient government.

And most importantly, a government that is more in line with what you — our taxpayers — can afford.”

Now, those are bold words! Fighting words!

At this very moment, as they hand out still warm copies of her plan, it is clear that Rell has brought political rhetoric to a new high (or low depending on your outlook).

Over the coming hours, days, and weeks we’ll know much more about what Rell’s budget really contains, but some basics are already clear.

While she will stick to her claim that her budget includes no new taxes, the fact is that this budget is just about as far as one can get from a plan that promotes a “smaller, less expensive, and more efficient” government.

Rell’s budget is a fraud and a sham.

It is not even remotely in balance.

She undermines program after program by raiding funds that are meant to tackle some of the most significant challenges facing our state.

She proposes to borrow money to provide one time revenues for on-going expenses.

She makes extraordinary cuts to some of the most vital and essential state services, cuts that will undermine the quality of life for tens of thousands of Connecticut residents.

She decimates Connecticut’s commitment to education and especially to our responsibility to provide higher educational opportunities for our citizens. At the same time, she balances her budget on unattainable “government reorganizations” and “employee savings” that can only be achieved by dramatically reducing the number of front line workers either through layoffs or worse, an illogical and counterproductive early retirement program.

Finally, one of the most shocking aspects of the Governor’s budget plan is her intention to use Connecticut’s share of the Federal Stimulus legislation to supplant rather than supplement Connecticut’s existing governmental resources.

From transportation and infrastructure funds, to additional dollars for Medicare, primary, secondary, and higher education, the Governor’s proposal seeks to reduce state allocations for those activities and then “fills the hole” with new federal funds.

Despite President Obama’s historic commitment to tackle this historic economic crisis, the next impact of Governor Rell’s proposal will be to ensure that few, if any, new jobs are created and little, if any, new support will be offered to the thousands of Connecticut families who are suffering.

The Federal Stimulus Package (in all of its present variations) is, in fact, designed to assist states with their deficits – but more importantly – it is designed to target funds to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and make key investments in vital areas of governmental activity.

By using the new stimulus funds to simply supplant existing expenses, the Governor undermines the most fundamental goal of President Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

By taking this action now, she can and will blame Congress and Connecticut’s congressional delegation if (1) the final package is less than what she has put into the budget and/or (2) the package requires spending in specific areas that would prevent her from using all the funds to simply supplant existing revenue.

Rest assured that should there eventually be a need to increase taxes, Rell will be quick to blame the Democrats here and in Washington by portraying any stimulus fund restrictions as the reason tax hikes may now be needed.

While Connecticut is facing an historic budget problem, this catastrophic economic crisis requires a far more aggressive and sophisticated effort than just grabbing a few hundred million in new federal dollars and dumping it into the state’s budget gap.

The Governor’s political pandering; raiding of funds, borrowing for current expenditures, and attempt to dismiss and undermine the federal effort is certainly understandable from a political standpoint. But her lack of leadership is completely reprehensible if our state and nation are truly engaged in getting through these troubled times by preserving essential state services, creating jobs, and helping the ever-increasing numbers of people in need.

Jonathan Pelto is a former State Representative, a Democrat, and is President of Impact Strategies Inc., a public relations company that specializes in issue advocacy.

Wondering–I was just giving the other side of the coin. A free exchange of opinions and ideas is what is necessary to form a workable compromise. Didn’t you think I knew what I was posting? Wait, don’t answer that.

Wondering: “Johnb You knew exactly what you were posting and your purpose was to knock the governor’s plan.”

JohnB: “Didn’t you think I knew what I was posting?”

As a friend of mine would say–asked and answered.

Husky Population Asked To Share Burden
Office of Health Care Advocate Gets the Ax
by Christine Stuart | February 4, 2009 6:52 PM
Posted to Health Care

Taking a play straight from former Gov. John Rowland’s playbook, Rell proposed raising a total of $18 million over the next two years by charging low-income adults monthly premiums and co-pays for the state’s Husky insurance program.

The proposed premiums would be applied on a sliding scale and could equal from 10 to 20 percent of the cost of services provided. The proposal received no mention in her budget address Wednesday, but was included in the 782-page document.

When asked if this was a tax increase on some of the state’s most vulnerable residents, Rell’s Budget Director Robert Genuario, said “No, not at all.” He said the poorest of the groups would still be exempt from that co-pay and for those being asked to pay “it’s a payment for service.”

Connecticut now charges families earning less than 185 percent of the federal poverty level no monthly premium to participate in Husky. Those above 185 percent of the federal poverty level must pay a premium. Premiums for those on the Husky B plan also will increase, and only emergency dental services will be offered to adults on Medicaid and Saga.

Children under the age of 18 and individuals at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty level won’t be asked to participate in the cost sharing, Genuario said.

State Healthcare Advocate Kevin Lembo said in a phone interview Wednesday night that he was still analyzing the proposal, but in general cost sharing is an obstacle for getting health care to the poor. He said the savings are not realized in the dollars received as part of the cost sharing, but in the direct care that people receive.

“Cost sharing just puts an obstacle in the way,” Lembo said.

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro even weighed in on the issue. In a statement released Wednesday night, DeLauro said, “It is unfortunate and disappointing that on the same day as we celebrate President Obama’s signing into law the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization, Governor Rell proposed a budget that would cut back some of the very health care services that Congress fought so hard to preserve and expand.”

“There is no question that given the extremely dire budget circumstances facing Connecticut, balancing the budget is no easy task,” DeLauro said. “But now is not the time to balance the state’s budget on the backs of low and middle-income Connecticut residents – many of whom are children. Ultimately, efforts to expand health care coverage will hold little value for our nation’s children and families if access to care continues to erode, whether by chipping away at benefits or increasing co-pays and deductibles.”

Connecticut Voices for Children agrees.

In the statement sent out Wednesday night the policy organization said, “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.”

In addition to the Husky cost sharing, Rell proposed eliminating the Office of the Healthcare Advocate, whose staff has been vocal about their opposition to the combination of the Husky program with her new Charter Oak Health Plan for uninsured adults.

When asked if he thought it was retribution for the opposition, Lembo said, “I can’t believe it would be retribution.”

“At best it was a misinformed attempt to trim,” he said.

The Office of the State Healthcare Advocate is an independent state agency which helps consumers resolve health insurance issues. It receives its operating expenses from the Insurance Fund, which is a levy on insurance companies to pay for their own regulation and for the consumer advocate.

He said by eliminating the office all Rell’s administration is doing is giving a credit back to the insurance industry. He said last year with a budget of $1 million and seven employees, he was able to help more than 2,000 consumers save $5.2 million in claims.

Since Jan. 1, 2005 the office has helped about 7,500 consumers save $14 million in claims.

“Not only do we have a business model that’s efficient, it’s one that’s being exported across the country,” Lembo said.

Juan Figueroa, president of the Universal Healthcare Foundation said, ” In addition to proposing short-sighted cuts to the state’s health care safety net responsible for our state’s most vulnerable residents, the governor’s budget calls for the elimination of the Office of the Healthcare Advocate. This would deal a devastating blow to consumers at a time when advocacy on their behalf is most urgently needed.”