President Trump and Fairness

A recent article in the Connecticut Mirror, an online newspaper, announced a Navy award of over $22 Billion to Groton’s Electric Boat company to build nine or possibly ten Virginia class attack submarines. The article quoted Connecticut’s Democratic leaders including Second District Congressman Joe Courtney, the State’s two Senators, and even Governor Lamont in praise of the huge boost to the State’s economy.

The article failed to give President Trump or the Trump Administration any credit for the Navy’s award. It quoted Connecticut Democratic politicians but did not even mention the President’s name. After all, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. 

President Trump referred to this reluctance to give credit or even just report significant news in his recent joint press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. In the course of that press conference, the questioning turned to Korea and the President took the opportunity to point out that in the past year his administration had succeeded in getting South Korea to contribute $500 Million more to the cost of stationing American troops in South Korea.

He asked the reporters if they were even aware of this news, and urged them to tell the story, especially since he was the first President in decades to ask the very prosperous South Koreans to pay their fair share.

No matter what you think of President Trump, you will have to admit that fairness is an important word or concept for him. One of the reasons the NATO meeting turned contentious was that the President repeated his claim that other NATO members were not paying their agreed upon, fair share of the cost of their own defense. For too many years they had been content to leave the lion’s share of the burden to the USA.

The President also uses fairness to describe his position on trade and tariffs.  To the dismay of the Wall Street Journal and other conservatives, he claims to be a “fair” trader and not a “free” trader. If the Chinese insist on putting high tariffs on American cars and motorcycles, he will retaliate by raising tariffs on their manufactured products. 

The economic arguments for or against tariffs don’t seem to concern him. He just argues that he will not play the chump, as his predecessors have done, and give away the store to China or any other country.

Fairness is also at the heart of his treatment of the press. Who can blame him for lashing out at the media or taking to Twitter to make his case. After almost three years in office, few have bothered to discuss or assess what he and his administration have actually done in office so far. There has been a steady flow of vitriolic venom directed against his person, his words and even gestures, but no real discussion or evaluation of his public policies or actions. 

Speaking of the press, I thought the President’s comportment in the press conference with Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, was remarkable in many ways. He did not think it necessary to dominate the conference but listened attentively to his ally’s comments and allowed him plenty of time to participate.

He then took questions that he answered with dignity, calm, and intelligence even when they inevitably swerved off the subject of NATO and on to impeachment. It was a remarkable performance. He spoke off the cuff in striking contrast to his predecessor in the Oval office, who rarely spoke without a teleprompter. 

In the press conference the President came off as a very magnanimous person, in striking contrast to those who are calling for his impeachment. He is not an ordinary politician. How else can one explain the $22 Billion award to a Connecticut company, one of the bluest states in the Country? 

The Senators from Connecticut have been two of his harshest critics over the past three years. My own representative from prosperous Fairfield County is one of the leaders in Congress in the impeachment process. I can’t think of any other President who would have allowed the Navy to award such a contract to a State from which he had nothing to gain politically. 

It’s just not fair to constantly blame and deride the President, and not give him credit for anything, especially when the Navy contract will provide much needed aid to the Nation’s defense, and the Connecticut economy.

### 

Connecticut Political Patronage 2019

Connecticut Political Patronage

Terry Gerratana, former State Senator

Ned Lamont, the new Governor of Connecticut, has continued the patronage or political welfare system practiced by his Democratic predecessor, Dannell Malloy. In his first month in office Lamont has taken at least five members of the State Legislature into high paying jobs in his administration. He is still a piker compared to Malloy who elevated about a dozen Democratic legislators to such jobs. 

Serving in the Connecticut legislature is still a part-time job with a salary of about $35000 per year. It makes you wonder why anyone would want such a position but there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. A position in the Governor’s administration is a full time job usually with a six figure salary. Moreover, legislators also get generous benefits including participation in the Connecticut State Employee pension system. What impact will their new position have on their pension benefits?

One of the new appointees is Terry Gerratana, a former State Senator from New Britain. She has served 17 years in the legislature during which she has contributed six or seven percent of her $35000 salary to the pension plan. If she had served three more years in the Legislature, she would have been eligible for a pension of $14000 per year (2% of pay for each year of service). It would require the State to come up with about $350000 to fund her pension.

However, if she makes $135000 in her new position, and works in the Lamont administration for only three years, her average pay for pension purposes will jump to $135000 per year. Instead of a pension of $14000 per year, she will be able to retire on $54000 per year, a $40000 increase. Instead of the State needing $350000 to fund her pension, it will need to come up with $1,350,000. With this one appointment alone, State actuaries will have to add about a million dollars to the State’s pension liability.

I am not saying that Ms. Gerratana is unqualified for her new position, and I am not saying that she is the only Democrat politician to profit from such patronage. I am just using her as an example. She and the other Democratic legislators raised to high paying administrative jobs and judgeships by Malloy and Lamont have added multi-million liabilities to the State’s pension system. 

A relatively small but significant first step in reforming the pension system and reducing future liabilities would be to remove State legislators from participation in the pension plan. Their existing vested benefits could be frozen and all future retirement contributions could be put into a defined contribution or 401k type plan. There is no sacrosanct union contract that would prevent Governor Lamont and his fellow Democrats who control the legislature from implementing this change.

 Just consider that instead of having to come up with a million dollars over the next three years to fund Ms. Gerratana’s pension, the State would at the most only have to match her contribution to the new 401k type plan. Alternatively, State legislators could just be put into the Social Security system like the rest of us. How could newly elected “progressive” legislators possibly object to being in Social Security?

Removing legislators from future participation in the State Employee defined benefit pension plan could be followed by a freeze on pension benefits for all existing State employees not covered by union contractual obligations. These employees would include non-union members and employees of the State’s executive, and judicial branches. It should also include all administrators in the University of Connecticut system. 

 In the future these employees could also participate in a defined contribution or 401k-type plan. This reform would still provide them with a retirement income, consisting of the vested value of the current plan as well as the accumulated value of the new defined contribution plan. This combination would still be superior to what is available to ordinary citizens in the private sector. 

People often fail to realize that the millions going to fund the increased pension benefits for legislators like Ms. Gerratana are dollars that could be used elsewhere. These dollars could be used to fund better salaries for teachers and police officers. They could be used to prevent layoffs of newly hired state employees. They could be used to provide much needed programs and supplies in schools. They could also be used to shore up the social safety net so dear to the hearts of Democrats.

The enormous unfunded pension liability of the State of Connecticut was not even an issue in last November’s gubernatorial election. Unless Governor Lamont and the Legislature get serious about pension reform, the State will face further huge tax increases, cuts in services, and possibly an eventual bankruptcy. 

###

Connecticut Election Post Mortem

 

Republican Bob Stefanowski’s campaign for Governor of Connecticut followed the same path that led other millionaire candidates like Linda McMahon and Tom Foley to flop on election day. Even though he garnered more votes than Foley, he lost the election because he could not overcome large Democrat majorities in cities like Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven in this year of record turnout.

Stefanowski’s campaign ignored the urban vote in the hope of overcoming it with majorities in suburban and rural areas. However, his proposal to eliminate or phase out the state income tax did not help him win many votes among suburbanites who believed that it was either impractical, or that it would only add to already high property taxes. Obviously, phasing out the income tax did not gain many votes in the inner cities whose residents, including college students, are largely exempt. 

Stefanowski could not even carry suburban Fairfield, a town of 75000 that he lost by a wider margin than the statewide percentage. As a Fairfield resident I was surprised that the Republican candidate did not even bother to campaign here. There were no visits or rallies and few lawn signs. There was no constant stream of mailing pieces. It appeared as if he had just written off not just Fairfield but all of prosperous Fairfield county.

In a recent op-ed in the Connecticut Post Tim Herbst, a Trumbull politician who was defeated by Stefanowski in the Republican primary, faulted Stefanowski and the Republicans for failing to muster a ground game to match the Democrat record setting numbers.


There was truth in Herbst’s assessment but no one was more responsible for the Republican defeat than Herbst himself. His refusal to accept the convention's nominee, and his decision to enter the primary did much to allow an inexperienced, wealthy outsider like Stefanowski to win the primary with only a small percentage of the vote.

If Herbst had thrown his support to Danbury mayor Mark Boughton, the convention's nominee, Boughton would likely have defeated Stefanowski in the primary. Even though Stefanowski garnered a record number of votes in the election, I believe that Boughton would have done better. He was an experienced Connecticut politician who would have gained more support from Republican leaders who still play a pivotal role in getting out the vote. He would probably have kept Danbury from favoring Lamont, and the full and active support of Herbst would certainly have helped in the Fairfield county suburbs

Stefanowski is a millionaire businessman, and he couldn’t help looking like a millionaire businessman even if he insisted on calling himself Bob. His desire to bring sound business practices to state government fell largely on deaf ears, especially since he failed to demonstrate how such reforms would benefit the average citizen.

No matter how sound your ideas may be, you must win the election to have any chance of implementing them. What’s the good of having good ideas, if you never get a chance to implement. Stefanowski’s Democrat opponent, the far-wealthier Ned Lamont from Greenwich, the wealthiest town in the state, does not look like a businessman. His strategy was to appeal to the Democrat base made up of public service unions, depressed cities, and suburban women upset about the supposed threat to women’s rights posed by the likes of Trump and Judge Kavanaugh. 

It's true that Stefanowski supported Trump but he had none of the President's charisma, moxie, and name recognition, essential equalities for a political outsider to win without the support of party regulars. This election should be a lesson to Republicans all over the country. Democrat Lamont was also uninspiring but he had a united party behind him.

###

Connecticut Governor's Race

 

Republican Bob Stefanowsk 

It looks like Republican Bob Stefanowski is not doing well in his quest to become Governor of Connecticut. After eight years of the disastrous administration of Democrat Governor Dannell Malloy, 2018 looked like the year when Republicans could not only win the Governorship, but also gain at least one of the legislative houses.

But Stefanowski’s campaign seems to be following the same path that led other millionaire candidates like Linda McMahon and Tom Foley to flop on election day. Each of them lost close elections because they could not overcome massive Democrat majorities in cities like Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven.

Stefanowski’s campaign seems to be conceding the urban vote in the hope of overcoming it with slight majorities in suburban and rural areas. His plan to eliminate or phase out the state income tax will not get him votes in the inner cities whose residents, including college students, are largely exempt. It won’t even help him win many votes among suburbanites who believe that it is either impractical, or that it will only add to already high property taxes. 

Stefanowski would be much better off in calling for a reduction in the state sales tax, a regressive tax that effects everyone in the state, even those in the inner cities. It is a regressive tax in that the poor pay the same rate as the rich. The tax is the same on diapers as it is on luxury items. I also suspect that a reduction in the sales tax would have great appeal among senior citizens. 

If you check out Stefanowski’s website, you will find a sound economic idea like eliminating business taxes is presented as if it would only benefit businesses.  He fails to point out that business taxes are really paid by those who buy the products and services provided by business. A business must inevitably pass on taxes and administrative costs to consumers or else it must go out of business. 

Stefanowski is a millionaire businessman, and he can’t help looking like a millionaire businessman even if he insists on calling himself Bob. But his campaign should not have been about business, or even about bringing business principles to government. It should have been about fairness for all the people of Connecticut. 

He could have gone to Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven and asked people if they had pensions that would guarantee them 70% of their highest salary after working only 35 years. He could have asked them if they even had pensions or benefits at all comparable to those enjoyed by state union employees. He could have asked Seniors if their Social Security checks came anywhere near the retirement benefits of public service workers.

Stefanowski could even have taken a more popular position on tolls and proposed just placing them on I95 at the Greenwich and Rhode Island entrances in the same way as New Hampshire and Delaware. In addition to raising money for needed infrastructure repair, such a moderate proposal would have been a popular vote getter. 

No matter how sound your policies may be, you must win the election to have any chance of implementing them. What’s the good of having good ideas, if you never get a chance to implement. Stefanowski’s Democrat opponent, the far-wealthier Democrat Ned Lamont from Greenwich, the wealthiest town in the state, does not look like a businessman. His strategy is to appeal to the Democrat base made up of public service unions, depressed cities, and suburban women upset about the supposed threat to women’s rights posed by the likes of Trump and Kavanaugh.

Democrat Ned Lamont

Stefanowski has little time left to make a dent in that coalition. Is it too late to go to Bridgeport and Hartford and express concern about the crime rate and the poor schools in those cities which have been controlled and mismanaged for decades by Democrats? It’s worth a try. Otherwise, he will share the fate of McMahon and Foley who spent millions only to come up short.

###