Last night, Gail Lavielle and Keith Rodgerson, the candidates for the 143rd State House District met in a debate hosted by the Norwalk and Wilton Leagues of Women Voters.
The hour-long session was more a polite turn-taking than a back-and-forth match, as each candidate offered his or her answer to questions posed by moderator Jean Rabinow, a LWV-CT board member.
In their answers to the questions posed, Lavielle drew on her more extensive legislative and government experience, while Rodgerson held his own articulating the delineations of where he and Lavielle differ on many issues. Often they declined to offer rebuttals or directly address their opponent’s positions, preferring to stick mostly to their own beliefs and platforms. Only once or twice did Rodgerson refer to Lavielle obliquely as “our legislator” when critiquing her past moves, and Lavielle tended to respond by politely schooling Rodgerson on how things happen in Hartford. It was only toward the end, Rodgerson aimed a more direct charge about “outside interests” influencing “my legislator,” that seemed to inspire a sharper response from Lavielle.
Their different styles were apparent from the start, with each candidate’s opening statement.
Rodgerson opened by acknowledging that he was under the weather. “It’s great to be here amongst family, friends and neighbors. I hope I don’t get anyone sick. I’d like to thank the League of Women Voters, a fantastic organization, a pillar of democracy, for seeing to it that we’re able to have this exchange of ideas, and we’re able to discuss the things that matter. Thank you.”
Lavielle made more of the opportunity. “I’ve had the privilege of representing this district for four years. I’m ranking member of the commerce committee and the appropriations subcommittee on transportation; and I serve on the appropriations, education and higher education committees. I’ve served on two state commissions and the local board of finance and energy commission. Before public service, I worked in business for 26 years, first in finance at Morgan Guarantee Trust and then in financial and corporate communications, investor relations and marketing. Among my management roles were chief executive of a subsidiary and senior vice president. I have a bachelors in English from Cornell, an MA in French from Yale and an MBA from UConn, My priorities are set by my constituents, I’ve met thousands of you. You’ve told me you’re worried you and your children can’t have a future in CT because it’s become unaffordable, the job market’s not secure, and retirement is not feasible. I think everyone in this state deserves to be able to count on the future, and my goal is to make sure that you can.
And then the questions began:
Q: As a state legislator, would you make any changes to CT’s gun safety laws, and if so, which?
Gail Lavielle: “No.”
Rodgerson: I still believe that high-capacity magazines have no place in our society. In 2011 there was a vote in the House of Representatives to ban high-capacity magazines, and it failed because of the intervention of the NRA and other special interests. I still do not believe that legal possession of high-capacity magazines is acceptable. I want to see that our laws are strengthened. I’m sorry I didn’t introduce myself, I’ve got a little 4-year-old boy I care a lot about, and Wilton is one of the safest towns in this state, I want to keep it this way for ourselves, for our families. If anything is to be done to gun laws, it’s not to divide them, or amend them or make them better, it’s just to strengthen them.
Q: What could the state legislature do about the cost of attending state universities and community colleges?
KR: Our tuitions are escalating, and they’re escalating in a way where even our in-state residents can’t afford to go. We have to look at our own interests. We’re engaged in regional consortiums, and see to it that we can share costs associated with colleges, with tuitions. But in order to offset our in-state tuitions we may have to look at other revenue streams, and that may mean we have to increase out-of-state tuition. This is a heavily, publicly-subsidized system, we need to build on regional relationships, but at the end of the day we need to see to it that our residents are getting educated, that our residents can afford to go to those schools, that we see as a state invest on our return in the public subsidies.
GL: Our higher education tuition costs have skyrocketed over the past several years. The figure of the past several years at the state universities–excluding UConn–is something like 11 percent, and at UConn they continue to go up every year. One of the highest contributing factors to costs at our state universities–including UConn–are the fringe benefits of the employees of the universities, particularly the administration. Interestingly, all of those contracts are negotiated by the state, not by each individual university. One of the things we can do are decentralize the negotiation of those costs, because the people who are in charge of the budgets of these colleges and universities are the administrators themselves, and therefore if they are to manage the revenues and manage their spending, they should be able to manage all of their costs. I did introduce a bill last year that would stop the practice of allowing unvouchered expenses of up to $25,000 for an entire segment of college and university administrators. It made it through the Higher Ed committee and another committee, and got all the way to the floor, where it was stopped. But I think we need to take measures like that.
Q: How could CT’s approach to financing K-12 education be improved?
GL: We have a formula in CT called the “education cost-sharing” formula. It is one central budget which is then allocated to the various towns, based on a number of factors, including the town’s ability to pay. That ability to pay is chiefly calculated on the basis of property values; there are other factors, like median income, poverty level, kids on free and reduced lunch, kids who’s first language is not english, and so on. But the way that the formula is calculated has resulted in a severe imbalance and inequity for the cities of Norwalk and Stamford. Because they’re very near to New York, and their property values are much higher than other comparable cities. As a result, Norwalk for example gets $10 million approximately in ECS funding; Danbury, which is a very similar city, except for the property values, gets $24 million. That inequity should not exist. The formula should be rebalanced so that median income is weighted far more heavily than property values. Then Norwalk certainly would be getting its fair share.
KR: The ECS formula is broken. It’s a very complex, serious of calculations where 169 towns and cities are throwing in their own two bits about what should and shouldn’t impact the amount of monies that go to our kids. That said, it’s under-funded. Even at that, it doesn’t count for prekindergarten, which, having a young child, I see it’s more critical that kids don’t fall behind early. And I’d say special needs assessment before kindergarten is also critical. These programs come with a cost, it’s a real cost, and we need to make responsible decisions at the state level with how we’re going to fund those things. We can’t propose making 15 cuts across the board in taxes and have free kindergarten. We can’t have our cake and eat it too. As that conversation moves forward we need to think about whether our priority is to try and cut every tax and every regulation, or if we want to actually see a productive, functional society with our kids starting off on the right foot.
GL: I do believe the area of very most important focus should be on early education. We still have thousands and thousands of children who are leaving third grade without being able to read, that’s the point where we have to start to worry. We also have remediation rates at community colleges and universities of over 70 percent. We have made some significant investments in preschool, for example the Bonding Bill, which I did vote for this year, funded grants of about $100 million to fund more slots. We need to keep looking at that, but we also need to look at where we spend money on things we don’t need, and to set our priorities properly.
KR: I just want to reiterate I’m here to (quote) eliminate, reduce taxes on income, sales, business, inheritance, gifts, pensions, real estate, gasoline and more, we have to ask ourselves where the [unclear] monies are going to come from? These are the hard questions, we can’t try to talk ourselves into thinking we’re going to get what we need without making some sacrifices.
Q: The last published unemployment rate in CT was 6.4 percent. How will you encourage job creation in the state?
KR: Glad you mentioned that. In my paper today [holds up newspaper] “CT sees largest employment gain since 1994.” Great news, this september. We need to continue on a path of progress. We need to consider our businesses and we need to consider our residents and what they need first. Beyond special interest lobbies, beyond these corporate tax foundations–I’m sure we’re going hear some of those facts and figures from them today about how every business is leaving CT and how every person is leaving CT. But when it comes to us and continuing our gains in employment–and we are in the right direction, we are moving forward–we need a steady hand on the keel of the state. We have the highest salaries in the nation. That’s not just because top people in most fields choose CT as their home. We also have a strong middle class. When we talk about trying to cut the state budget, or trying to save money on public works projects by taking money out from the middle and letting it flow to the top, I think those policies are wrong-minded. We don’t want to encourage class warfare. That’s not what this is about. It’s about seeing to it that we have a large amount of people who are able to work, to live productive lives, to invest the money that they can squirrel away in a storefront, in a small business, who are able to have all the opportunities that my grandparents had when they came off their boats and worked and got union jobs and learned trades and were able to own homes and send their kids to college. My generation doesn’t have that now. Balancing a young child and my grandparents at the same time is a difficult time, but we need to have a hand on the keel of this ship, a steady hand.
GL: I don’t think any business needs to be told, “Please create jobs.” They would love to. Businesses love to grow. A couple of things I hear–not from any outside foundation or other organization, but from my constituents and the businesses that I’ve visited with many, many times in the capitol, and businesses who have invited me to visit them–they want consistency. They find that our tax policy and our regulatory policy changes constantly. The problem is that businesses plan on a 5-10 year horizon, so we need to have some constituency in those areas, and to stop making them do more and more difficult things with more and more mandates. Making life harder. We need to give businesses that are outside the state an incentive to come here. And that does mean tax incentives. That means lower operating costs, on an ongoing basis. That means taxes, fees, energy costs, insurance costs, all of those things. We need to review our system of enterprise zones. We need to make bold moves like our neighboring states, like New York–not the same ones, I don’t think they’re quite right for us–but we need to be affirmative and sure of ourselves, and say, “Come here it will pay off for you operationally and in terms of costs and being able to make long term plans.”
KR: In my own practical experience, helping businesses, helping them grow, access working capital, helping them get construction loans, or be able to [unclear] facade programs, or getting them to be able to create jobs, those business that can’t access the capital markets since banks don’t lend what they used to. Our state has to play a very proactive part and see to it that their business can grow, that we have capital funds available for them be to able to expand. Dealing with a lot of businesses, our regulatory structure here it needs to be level. Because it’s really skewed to out-of-state businesses. They’re the ones with the lobbies that are basically trying to bleed our economy, trying to stir regulations and the tax code toward them instead of towards our businesses. We don’t want to have places like Walmart having such a major effect on our economy. We want to see to it that our policies coming from our small businesses and our small organizations in the state.
GL: I would agree, small businesses represent more than 70 percent of the economy in CT. That’s one reason that I and many others support the small business express program, which has had great success, it has provided grants and loans and matching funds to upwards of 1,000 businesses. The state is not a bank, but there are some incentive programs like that. [unclear] and make some capital investments. There’s the manufacturing investment account, there are also some recent apprenticeship and hiring tax credits that we voted in. All of those are designed to help small businesses specifically, and we should continue.
Q: What can we do to bring more public transportation to Wilton and reduce dependence on cars and gasoline?
GL: That’s something everyone in Wilton would want us to do. We do have a train line here. It could work a lot better than it does. We’ve made some improvements to it but not enough. Our mass transit system needs desperately a great deal of funding. The regional plan association’s estimate of what it would to completely fix MetroNorth is $3.6 billion. Do we have that? No. It’s going to take a while and it’s going to take a mix of solutions, but we have to focus on it. We have to make sure the Danbury line is front and center, and we ought to extend it to New Milford. There’s another solution–we need to prioritize state bonding and focus on transportation instead of the State buying tennis tournaments and parking garages, not funding for earmarks, but things that benefit the whole state. Fix what we have before we build anything new. MetroNorth carries 39 million passenger rides a year. We need to protect the special transportation fund, which we’ve started doing. We have a statute that will go into effect next year, which I worked very hard with others to make happen. We need to look at MetroNorth cost structure, at the contract–we currently pay 65 percent of the operating costs, but does that include routine maintenance? It shouldn’t. We also need to work with the other to lobby for more funds from the Federal government if there are any left. But it’s going to take a concerted effort and we do need to provide multi-modal transportation to help people to have an alternative to cars.
KR: When it comes to transportation along the Danbury line, our future is uncertain. When our future is uncertain as is the future of Rt. 7, will you see private investment not come? Our future is this line. We need to see to it that we put substantial public investment in the line. We need a stop in Georgetown to help support the Gilbert-Bennett mill. Also, even though it’s out of the district, in Wall Street, we need to focus on transportation, because we need to have a balance. These rail systems, MetroNorth and the Danbury branch, they’re very heavily publicly subsidized. We will never make a dime off these. We need to insure the public of the state that their public subsidy will be met by private investment. We need transit development around our train stations. Here in Wilton our Democratic headquarters is across from here at the Crossways. There are a bunch of historic structures. They will be knocked down, there is no market solution to that parcel. That is very proximate to this train station, yet we don’t have the resources, the drive, the initiative, and the resolve to see to it that we’re going to do the right kind of development around these transit nodes. And we need to, we need to do it in Branchville, in Georgetown, we need to do it here in Wilton Center. Without that we’ll have no justification for running public subsidy.
GL: This is one of the reasons we’re so proud of Wilton Commons, which was built through a combination of public and private investment. It took 12 years to get the state funding, but we got it. It serves a number of purposes: one is to help seniors who don’t drive get to the center of town and get to the train station. It’s located right here, right next to the train station. But also, I would say that most people in the legislature are firm advocates of transit-oriented development. There’s lots of reasons for it–for young people to get to work when they’re starting out, for seniors who no longer drive, for the disabled, just for convenience, just to reduce congestion. It has become a priority of the administration and of the legislature.
KR: I want to reiterate how important it is to village build here in Wilton, in Branchville, in Georgetown, in Cannondale, in Wilton Center. Without these private developments generating revenue, we will lose our history. When a gas station is built, we have to look at it for 30-40 years, and if it’s ugly that’s our future and that impacts all of private investment around.
Q: Aside from improving public transportation, is there anything the state can and should do to improve traffic on I-95 and route 15?
KR: Our state, the biggest problem businesses are having in our state, I would say our tax and regulatory structure, a lot is highly problematic, but it is our inability to move people, goods and information efficiently. It creates a huge burden on businesses in CT. We need to move truck traffic off of 95. We need to invest in freight. If we are not able to move these trucks off 95, by 2025, 95 percent of the traffic will be trucks. Unfortunately 95 is becoming increasingly obsolescent; route 15 is becoming obsolescent; route 7, as we can see is becoming obsolescent. We need to look to rail to solve our needs and use public monies wisely to generate as much private revenue as we can for the state.
GL: One of the things I was happiest about during this session was that we succeeded finally in passing a bill to create a port authority for the state of CT, to develop a port system in New London, Bridgeport and New Haven. Those ports have fallen into a very low degree of use. They need dredging, they need development, they need promotion. Some of the freight we have can be moved through our ports. That’s a good move forward and I’m looking forward to sticking with it. Also we need to look at freight rail. We don’t have a good freight rail system, that’s a big investment, but we’ve got to look at it. I’ve also heard some interesting proposals in the transportation committee, about voluntary, optional express lanes, where traffic can move faster. That’s not a way of getting people out of their cars, but it does help traffic. Those are a few things, but the ports and freight rail will make a difference. If we ever get to the point where we can look at tramways and monorails, in larger cities would be a wonderful development. We’re a long way off from that but we have that kind of population density, we can make that work for us.
Q: Recently Norwalk suffered extensive damage and flooding from storms Irene and Sandy. What should the state do to assist coastal communities to prepare for extreme weather and to prevent property damage and erosion?
GL: Westport had a great deal of damage as well. One of the things was to push hard for monies from the federal government. We did take some initiatives in bi-partisan legislation. One was to impose some tree trimming rules. I know you’ve seen folks on Route 33, 53, curvy roads to get the trees off the wires. We passed laws to clarify the responsibilities and liabilities of property owners and utility companies. We also imposed some performance standards on utilities. So that there are sanctions and fines and there are disciplinary measures if they don’t make the repairs in a stipulated amount of time. There’s also some legislation we worked on (but theres more to do) about coastal management, again clarifying rights of property owners and the state, in terms of hardening the sea wall, either by physically doing it or a natural way with vegetation. These are all very important points that the legislature has already done a good bit of work on, but it’s not finished. The utilities still need some more clarification of their responsibilities, and just how much they can inflict on rate payers, because it’s been too much, as was their latest proposal of an increase.
KR: The funds Gov. Malloy secured to allow people who live in coastal communities to raise their homes was very critical to trying to keep our historic neighborhoods in place but also modernize their habitat so they can deal with the effects of climate change which is real. The impact of our rising tidal waters, and the tremendous impact it’s had on our businesses and our homes. I was on the front lines of Sandy in the city of Bridgeport, working in private development, working in helping manufacturers in the East End, which is below sea water, being swamped out by sea water, trying to access financing–a lot of them were underinsured because manufacturing isn’t quite where it used to be. We need to see to it that we have capital resources available when these tragedies hit, and that our manufacturers can get back on line, and that they can do the same kind of preventative measures–temporary berms, raising their mechanics–to see to it that the jobs are salvaged, businesses are salvaged, that they’re not going to go run off inland. This district has a close correlation with the coastal areas with the towns we represent. I also think it’s critical for us to make what are extraordinary investments in the sea walls. We’re trying to fight nature, these efforts cost tens of hundreds of millions of dollars. We need to make sure we have the resolve to make these investments to protect our way of life, and businesses that constitute our communities.
Q: What solutions do you propose to solve the issue of the lack of affordable housing in our area and developers use of the State’s affordable housing law to build higher density than local zoning would allow?
KR: 830-g creates sprawl. It is an antiquated legislation and it leads to incredibly contrary development outcomes. In Wilton, we’re having an historic home threatened by 830-g. It’s really important to gain a consensus in Hartford so we can change 830-g. But it’s also important, as I mentioned before, that we understand in order to create a market that will salvage a lot of the historic structures around our train stations–in order to justify the massive public subsidy that they need, we need to think about density around the areas around our train station. To house our seniors, to house artists, to house that entire generation coming out of college who spend all their money on retail, who spend all their money at restaurants, who businesses chase after, who actually make Fairfield County one of the most vibrant, young urban professional places to live, and which make Wilton the largest point of anemia in the entire county. If you haven’t noticed, unless your kids are living in your basement, they’re not here. They ‘re in Norwalk, in New York State where New York State is collecting their income taxes. Not us. We need to reconfigure 830-g with transit organization, so it has an effect of trebling the bonuses involved with this law. So we see to it that we’re not punished for having small condos and artist-live workspaces, that our seniors can downsize into, that unfortunately our divorcees can downside into, that our kids can go to, that our community can have a life cycle-type community around transit.
GL: 830-g was a well-intentioned law that just didn’t go the way it was supposed to. The greatest problem is that each of our 169 towns and cities have their own plans of conservation and development, which they have very meticulously structured, developed, built. They have ways they want to plan their community locally, the people who live there know where they’d like to see housing put, not that they don’t want to have it, they just want to be able to decide where it is. 830G doesn’t allow them to do that. If you don’t have a health or safety argument, a developer can come in and put housing anywhere they want. I have worked particularly closely with my Democratic colleague in Westport and other legislators to suggest modifications to 830-g. We’ve had hearings, we’ve had a lot of bi-partisan agreement. SWERPA has made concerted efforts, but so far the Speaker of the House has not wanted to make any change. I believe we need a more concerted Fairfield County effort, with all of the legislators at least from here, working together. I’m sure it’s a problem in other parts of the state, but we all share common interests. If towns were allowed to use their plan of conservation and development to determine where they put housing, it would make things a lot more equitable and work better.
KR: I know that there have been legislators that have tried to amend 830-g, If I’m not misrepresenting, our legislator had an amendment to qualify affordable housing as housing that seniors would live in without any affordability restrictions. In effect, if my understanding is correct, that’s not really a consensus item, to try to build a $900,000 condo for a senior citizen and try to qualify that as something that would take care of our workforce needs and the affordable housing needs of our seniors.
GL: Just as a point of interest, the various modifications that were suggested by numerous legislators from Fairfield County last year were all agreed upon as a group, within SWERPA. There were four or five different suggested modifications, sometimes you suggest modifications from enough legislators just to have enough to justify a public hearing, so that the subject can be discussed. My preference is to require new developments to respect the plan of conservation and development locally. But there are others.
Q: What role, if any, will climate change play to influence resource planning, and what should the legislature do to help our region become better prepared to preserve and recover our energy supply after storms?
GL: I’m not sure I understand the question?
Moderator: I think they may be talking about coastal flooding in one of the last big storms took out significant percentage of power to Bridgeport and some of the other coastal communities are at risk.
GL: I don’t have a crystal ball, but it’s a consideration in everything we do in the legislature. I prefer to err on the side of caution, as we see things change we do need to be prepared, we do need to keep developing many alternative sources of energy. If we’re completely dependent on electricity, that’s not diversifying our energy portfolio, we have begun…I do agree with the strategy of expanding natural gas, but also solar, wind and other types of renewable energy. We need to keep doing that with discretion, as we can pay for it. We also need to work very hard to reinforce the systems that we have. So there’s been investment called for in terms of the hardening of electrical wires. If you’re counting on more storms, more severe weather, all of these things are necessary. [Putting] all power lines underground costs so many millions and billions of dollars, that we can’t just do it, but if we’re digging a hole for something else, maybe we could bury the lines when we do that, that’s a good thing. We should continue to harden, we should continue to diversify and we should continue making it a priority.
KR: I believe, this is not, just obviously an economic equation, but our state shouldn’t have coal plants. We have a major coal plant, which has fed into in a couple substations, down in Bridgeport which is a major flood zone, which begets other issues with regard to coastal flooding. But there a lot of special interests at work in the state that are seeking to eliminate regulations on coal emissions, to eliminate regulations on particulate emissions in the state, and I think we need to play our part in global warming to see to it that these groups–National Federation of Independent Businesses, other different lobbies that are pushing on the Federal level, to see to it that the EPA cannot manage particulate emissions from coal plants–that these groups don’t have a say in Hartford and that we’re able to see to it that we have the latitude we need over our own destinies. So that our children don’t have asthma, that we’re doing our part to see to it that emissions aren’t increasing and that we’re doing our part to stave off global warming.
Q: This year on the ballot, voters will be asked if they support a change in the state constitution which would enable our legislators to consider and debate future changes in election procedures. Do you support the proposed change, and if the change is approved by voters, would you as a legislator support or oppose changes to the elections, such as a few days of early voting or fewer restrictions on absentee voting?
KR: My grandfather fought in two wars to see that we have the right to vote. And that right to vote is something that’s critical to our democracy. I support this constitutional question wholeheartedly. It cuts government regulation into the most important part of our lives, which is the decision-making with regard to our elected officials. Campaign contributions, to see the money that goes into campaigns, we should have total transparency when it comes to this electoral process. When it comes to expanding our election day access to votes, helping our seniors like this constitutional amendment does, to have the [unclear] to be able to vote at some point which is convenient so they can participate in our democracy, it’s absolutely critical. I’m also thankful there’s an organization like the League of Women Voters, which sees to it that these critical structures in our democracy are able to exist and help us do the things we need to do.
GL: I will say first, that I did vote to support no excuse absentee voting. My caucus introduced an amendment to allow no excuse absentee voting, period. I voted for that. I don’t see why you have to have an excuse. The question, though, is different, and I want to be precise about it. I did vote ‘no’ twice on this resolution–you have to do it twice if you don’t get three-fourths–but not because of the political reasons that have been brought up again and again. It’s not because there is, or might be more voter fraud or less voter fraud. That has nothing to do with it in my mind. This constitutional amendment does not enable the people of CT to do anything. What it does is remove language from the constitution that has anything to do with voting. It doesn’t enable the people of CT to do anything, it enables the legislature to do what it sees fit, and to introduce a whole spectrum of measures, which may include either allowing voting anytime you want, or becoming much more restrictive. We forget that because there’s an assumption the legislature will always tend one way. It may go the other way one day, who knows. It’s actually advocating for the public the ability to vote on the precise regulations that we would have to expand those possibilities and leaving that [unclear].
KR: I’m not quite sure what you just said, but I respectfully disagree.
Q: How are gasoline taxes spent and what changes if any should the legislature make?
GL: Wonderful question. Gasoline taxes are meant to go into the special transportation fund, where they are meant to be used for transportation purposes only. However, in the last ten years, about $1.4 billion in gasoline revenues have been spent on other things. I did say the last 10 years, I didn’t say just the last four. There’s been a long-standing practice of raiding the special transportation fund to use [it] for other purposes, at the whim of the legislature, which sets the budget. I introduced a bill in 2012 and had 27 signatures from both parties to co-sponsor. It made a lot of noise, but it was an off year. So the following year, a lot of us brought it up again, introduced various bills to create a lock box around the special transportation fund. At the end of the day, the language was introduced into the DOT omnibus transportation bill in the spring of 2013, and it is now law, that as of July 1 of next year the special transportation fund is supposed to be used only for transportation purposes. We have proposed as well a constitutional amendment to ensure that protection. It went pretty far this year, it didn’t go all the way, but maybe we’ll do it again. But I believe firmly that those funds should be used, particularly in the current context, when we have such dire need to invest in transportation, be used only for transportation purposes.
KR: There has never been enough money in that transportation fund to support the types of upgrades that we need to have a functional rail system, not even to go into the state of our roads and bridges. That said, there’s a lot of political squabbling in Hartford over moving this pile of money from this bucket to that bucket and back to be used for transportation or not used for transportation. This beckons the question of exactly how are we going to pay for everything? Going back to the gasoline tax, I know that my opponent wants to lower the gasoline tax. I would like to see the funds that go into the lockbox obviously be used for transportation, but we’re going to need much more than what’s locked in that box. It’s woefully inadequate. Of course I would not like to see the gasoline tax lowered, me and my opponent see differently on that. We should focus our investment on rail, it’s important for Fairfield County. We want to disincentivize having such an auto-orientation.
GL: I outlined a number of things before that we need to do to start to make those investments more consequential in transportation, and I do agree, by the way, that the special transportation fund alone certainly doesn’t get us there. That’s about, in the last two years we raised about $130 million. All of those things I outlined before are going to be necessary. You really need to look at the other things, the bonding and earmarks and all of the other things that the state has spent money on, and put transportation at the top of the list.
KR: I just want to state the importance of not making severe cuts to the gasoline tax.
Q: If the affordable care act is repealed, the CT exchange will seek to exist. What will you do to in the state legislature to ensure that CT citizens will continue to receive the healthcare they need at an affordable price?
KR: One big, stark contrast between myself and my opponent is I believe insurance companies should be mandated to provide certain services. Should ACA be eliminated by a group like the National Federation of Independent Businesses, who come in with their lawsuits, trying to fight ACA or other groups who are trying to erode our economy and our well-being here in CT, I would like to see to it that we insure that our insurance companies continue to not be able to exclude people from coverage. As someone who has had a life-long issue that has led for a long time to not be able to invest in my own private business. We need to see to it that our insurance companies have to provide a certain level of care. Seeing to it that they don’t support our seniors with ostemy supplies, that they provide a full range of preventive healthcare screening for women especially, breast cancer. Insurance companies, they have an obligation to our society, to families here in CT, to provide a certain level of services. And should ACA fall apart, I would want to step in and see that insurance mandates to see that our people get insured.
GL: I’d be very surprised if the whole Affordable Care Act were repealed. That would be quite a surprise. However if insurance exchanges were eliminated in CT, people ought to be able to choose the kind of insurance coverage they get. I think I have always been very, had a lot of consternation about non-coverage of pre-existing conditions; I thought that was out of whack for a long time. That’s one thing I’m glad to see covered. Aside from a basic level of coverage, people ought to be able to choose what kind of insurance they buy, and they should not be obligated to buy a policy that covers everything from soup to nuts if they do not want it. It should be their choice. Of course the pricing would be calculated according to that. In CT, we have more than 70 insurance mandates, we have quite a lot already. But I think we need to look at people, before we look at insurance companies, people are more important than insurance companies, and certainly their health is. While I don’t think the scenario suggested is going to come to be, I do think that leaving that element of personal choice, and leaving people’s personal business to them is one of the most important things we can do.
KR: It’s been a big point of contrast in this campaign, reading from this piece of literature: eliminate insurance mandates would raise healthcare costs. As I looked at my legislator’s voting record, I saw she would vote against things like requiring insurance companies to provide ostemy supplies to people like my grandparents. I just have to question whether we share the same values, whether my representative is vouching for me or for someone else or something else somewhere else.
GL: I’d like to say one thing: We are not Congress in CT. We have a public finance system for politicians. I have taken those funds every time I’ve run for office. Every time I have taken contributions from individuals, they are no more than $100 an individual. We can’t take money from such organizations. I certainly have no motivation, nor do my colleagues, to follow the agenda of anyone but my constituents. Sometimes these organizations may have something to say, some testimony to deliver but ultimately I don’t actually care what they think.
Closing statements:
GL: I represent a wonderful, unique district. Westport is a joy, Norwalk has become a second home, and Wilton is our home, with a special place in my heart. It’s been my pleasure to serve you for several years. I know our district’s people and the legislative process, and I’ve built strong bipartisan relationships and received leadership roles in Hartford. I am Ranking Member of both the Commerce Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, and I serve on the Appropriations, Education, and Higher Education Committees. I have served on several bipartisan commissions and task forces, including the Commission on Connecticut’s Future, the Education Mandate Relief Task Force, the Higher Education Consolidation Committee, and the GMO Labeling Task Force, and I am an active member of two bipartisan caucuses, the Long Island Sound Caucus and the Manufacturing Caucus.
I’ve never presumed to know better than you what you want – my job is to help you achieve it and to tell you the truth. My business background taught me client service, listening, firmness, and collaboration. My early finance training at Morgan Guaranty and my years abroad taught me deference and diplomacy. I know I am your representative, not your arbiter.
You’ve told me you need tax relief, affordable retirement, jobs, good transportation, quality education, reasonable higher ed tuition costs, and reliable social services, and I’m fighting for it all. But CT has spent, borrowed, and taxed too much, and for all the things we need, it’s urgent to get our state’s financial house in order. I fight hard for that too, and I’ll keep going. I’ve helped pass bipartisan measures for jobs, education, early literacy, consumer protection, emergency preparedness, and open space. I’ve introduced many pieces of legislation that have become law, on the transportation lockbox, school mandate relief, a statewide port authority, small business tax credits, and more, and I’ve brought tax dollars back to our towns and helped commuters. I’m endorsed and recognized by business groups, environmental groups like the Sierra Club, and professional groups like doctors, realtors, retired teachers, and commuters.
But the only people who count are you. Everything I do as your representative starts with you. You shape my priorities and decisions. You set the guideposts for my work, because I do it all on your behalf. I’ve sought you out, and I’ve met thousands of you. I keep you informed, and always ask for your feedback. I want to thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. You’ve invited me into your homes, spoken at public meetings, written to me, and testified at hearings. On difficult issues, you let me know where you stand. It’s a privilege to serve people who are so articulate, forthcoming, and involved. Every one of you must be able to count on a future in Connecticut, and my goal is to make sure you can. I’d be honored to continue to serve you.
KR: It’s very gracious that this was all pulled together. This was a struggle to find common ground to have discussion about the needs of the district, what needs to happen. There are forces at work in this state that seek to bleed our economy, to impact my child’s healthcare, to make it more difficult for our businesses to operate at a profit than [unclear] out of our state. I live in Georgetown, and I look around and see a lot of blight, I see a large lack of economic production. As I come in every day up Rte. 7, around WalMart, I see blight and dilapidation. When I go to town hall, across the street, I see blight and dilapidation and vacancy. We’re at a crossroads here in Wilton. We’re not seeing the type of economic development that Norwalk is. Norwalk is having trouble trying to control all this economic development in a way that will lead to the most economically productive [unclear]. We’re at a crossroads here in Wilton, we need to make the decision as to what is the skill set of our representatives that we want to have, how effective do we want our legislators to be, is it our legislator’s job to pass bills and to effect regulations and secure a future for us–whether it be 830-g, whether it be through state bonding, whether it be through building coalitions and seeing to it that the things that happen here happen. We’re at a crossroads here in Wilton, and I want to ask you just to think what is that skill set you want to see in Hartford on your behalf.