With Governor Rell pulling out of contention for this year’s gubernatorial elections, the door was wide open for the Republican candidates to make a bid for Connecticut’s highest office. As has been anticipated, Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele quickly announced that he will indeed run to upgrade his current position in office and many pundits consider him the favorite to win in November. We sat down with the Lt. Governor for one of his first magazine interviews after he launched his campaign and asked him questions on a variety of issues concerning our communities to bring you a unique perspective of his agenda.
Q: What are the issues that you would like to tackle as a governor most?
A: I think that the number one issue facing the folks in Connecticut is obviously the economy and jobs. The next governor has to be someone who can not only stimulate the economy, but stimulate the economy to create jobs. If you look at our revenue issues that we are facing here in the state, those issues are because of what has happened in the economic downturn. We have over 100,000 people out of work and I would argue that we don’t need to tax more, as my Democratic majority folks are talking about in the legislature. We need to create jobs. So for the next governor the number one position is to create jobs, looking at efficiencies in government and streamlining, and getting the state back on track.
WEB EXCLUSIVE:
Q: Do you think that it’s realistic to say that we’ll be able to balance the budget, or at least come close to balancing it, without raising taxes at all?
A: Well, I think it’s something you have to look at. I think there’s been a tendency at times in government to look at raising revenue first before making the tough decisions. I’ve sat in some of those budget negotiations and it’s not an easy thing to do when you say “let’s curtail or cut government spending”. It’s a lot [easier] said than done. However, it’s something we have to do. It is a proven fact that raising taxes on people and businesses does not create jobs. It’s a fact that it moves jobs. So, if you believe that the major issue facing this state is the economic downturn and jobs, you definitely do not want to do something like raise taxes to stifle that growth. Traditionally what’s happened is government has looked at raising revenue. You saw on the flash budget – the creation of a millionaire’s tax and a 10% surcharge on corporate earnings, those types of things, which I don’t think long term create job opportunities. Secondly, they also don’t bring a lot more income. The comptroller, who is a Democrat, Nancy Wymann, has stated that there wasn’t really much money coming in from the so called millionaire’s tax. So, just because you raise the [tax] rate doesn’t mean you’re going to get more money. Because if people aren’t working they’re not going to be able to pay that tax.
Q: Connecticut is currently facing a record budget deficit. What is your outlook for the future and how do you plan to balance the budget, especially if the economic recovery remains at a slow to moderate pace as expected by most economists.
A: I think what we need to do is, you know, over the years what is happening is the state spending has grown considerably over the number of years. We need to take a look at where we are spending our dollars, we need to prioritize where we are spending our dollars, and look at making those investments. There are also areas in state government where the private sector is paramount. Some of the areas that I am thinking are in the social services area where the private not-for-profit sector does a much better job in the delivery of services to those communities than state government. We should look at where we can outsource some of those responsibilities to those not-for-profits and pay them to provide those services. So, there are number of ways we can look at the spending, but clearly what we need to look at is to prioritize what we do and look at what the return on that investment is. But clearly if it’s one that doesn’t make sense, it’s one to be cut. It’s not an easy thing to do, but again, it’s kind of a double edged sword, because we need to continue to make the investments that we can in the economic stimulus of our economy here, to create those jobs. I believe that once we get those jobs back and put a good track on record that this economy will turn around and that those people will be creating revenue because that they are working, paying taxes, and our cost will come down because we are not paying unemployment, insurance and healthcare.
Q: Do you think that it’s realistic that we’ll be able to balance the budget, or at least come close to balancing it, without raising taxes at all?
A: Well, I think it’s something you have to look at. I think there’s been a tendency at times in government to look at raising revenue first before making the tough decisions. I’ve sat in some of those budget negotiations and it’s not an easy thing to do when you say “let’s curtail or cut government spending”. It’s a lot harder said than done. However, it’s something we have to do. It is a proven fact that raising taxes on people and businesses does not create jobs. It’s a fact that moves jobs. So, if you believe that the major issue facing this state is the economic downturn and jobs, you definitely do not want to do something like raise taxes to stifle that growth. So I think that the first thing you have to do is look at that and I think traditionally what’s happened is government has looked at raising revenue. You saw on the flash budget – the creation of a millionaire’s tax and a 10% surcharge on corporate earnings – those types of things, I don’t think long term create job opportunities. Secondly, the also don’t bring a lot more income. The comptroller, who is a Democrat, Nancy Wymann has stated that there wasn’t really much money coming in from the so called millionaire’s tax. So, just because you raise the rate doesn’t mean you’re going to get more money because if those people aren’t working they’re not going to be able to pay that tax.
Q: Besides leaving the taxes where they are how do you stop the leak of jobs from the state and how do you foster new job growth?
A: I think what you have to do is you have to sit down with business and I think there has been a tendency in government, particularly from the majority legislative side, to look at business as the bad guy. I actually, when I talk to legislators, I don’t even use the word businesses. I use the word employers. There’s a different connotation when you say someone’s an “employer”, over just a “business”. We have to sit down with these people, as I did yesterday. Yesterday, I spend, in that snowstorm, the whole day up in the northwest corner of our state, up in Litchefield county. I drove up there from Stamford and met with four or five different manufacturers, small businesses, to understand what is it that drives them, what are the challenges that they face, be the energy cost, be the trained skilled personnel. What are those issues. Understand them and then work with those businesses and employers to put together programs in state government that would help them. It’s kind of interesting – there’s a tendency at times to believe that businesses are looking for tax credit. I heard an interesting comment from one of the manufacturers that I met with yesterday. He said that he had listened to the President as I had the night before [Editor’s note: The State of the Union address] and the President, and even in the state, we have an employer tax credit – if you hire employees you will get a tax credit. He said “Does the President think that you are going to go and hire someone, just because you get a tax credit?” People are going to hire people because there’s a demand for their work. So we have to help create that demand for them and not just provide tax credits that may or may not work. Each one of the manufacturers I met with yesterday, had different concerns. Now, some of them are very similar – energy cost, educated workforce and so on. But it’s important that we engage manufacturers, engage businesses, engage employers to find out what is it that they need and then we can work with them to put together a plan. And I’ll give you an example of where that’s worked. The film tax credit. If you look back five years from now we did very little film in the state. And yet about three years ago the legislature and the executive branch said “we want to go after the film business”. They got together, they figured what was the best way to do it – by implementing an income tax. Legislation went out to attract those businesses. Now, there are those folks who argue that that tax credit may be a little bit lucrative for the folks and the first phase of what we’ve seen has been the six to eight weeks production. But, what we’ve [also] seen now is the Stamford Center for the Arts went for two companies. We have now two shows that are being filmed out of Stamford daily that created 120 jobs. You go up the line and we have “Deal or No Deal” – another production by NBC Universal. BlueSky digital animation in Greenwich – over 300 jobs. So there’s a perfect example where the executive branch and the legislature got with the industry and said “OK, we want to go after you. How do we make that happened.” And then voted legislation to encourage that. We need to do the same thing with all the other businesses in the state. Identify what those assets are, be they bioscience, be they finance, be they specialized manufacturing, sit down with them and say “OK, what is it that we, as a state working with you, as a partnership, have to do to move forward to create these jobs.”
Q: You mentioned the current Obama administration and some say that the state has not worked done enough to work closely with the President and his administration to get more federal aid for the state. How do you plan on moving forward with Washington and what do you think of the job that the White House has done so far.
A: It’s kind of interesting, because all our congressional delegation is Democrats right now. There’s not a Republican. So you would hope that you would have a voice at the table, particularly since some of the representatives are senior representatives there. So, my hope as governor would be to work much more closer with the delegation and see what more we can get out of that delegation to get those funds. I can tell you that Connecticut would not have been able to balance the flash budget, this budget, the $8 billion whole, were it not for the federal stimulus. However, I don’t believe that the promise of what the federal stimulus was going to do has occurred – the creation of the jobs that we are all looking for. I think there was a lot of red tape and bureaucracy coming down and that it’s still being unraveled. So, I think if we’re going to work with the federal government and whatever future programs they launch we need to make sure that we get our fair share, particularly in the transportation funds. I-95, which runs through our state, is a major corridor for the whole Northeast, and making sure that only that the funds we get is our fair share, but also making sure that at the end objective will accomplish what they say it’s going to do.
Q: What do you think has governor Rell done well so far and what areas of her policies would you change?
A: If you look back, Governor Rell came as governor at a time where there were a lot of folks in the state questioning the ethics and the type of government that we had here in the State of Connecticut. In very turbulent times she came in. And I think Governor Rell took a steady hand to that and showed everyone that we had a good ethical government, one you can trust. She put in place campaign and contract reform to make people feel more comfortable about what was going on in government. So, I think she made people believe in government, at least trust in government, again in Connecticut. I think she’s done a great job in doing that. It’s something that any governor, including myself, would want to do going forward, to making sure that the citizens of the state have faith and confidence and believe in the works their representatives to government were doing and trusted them with what their decisions were.
Q: And where would you change course?
A: Well, you know, everybody has different styles. Governor Rell has a different style how she meets and communicates with folks on the field. I clearly have a different style to that, so I would be out there more on the field, as I was yesterday [Editor’s Note: This interview was conducted on Friday, January 29, 2010]. I spent a whole day on the field in a snowstorm talking to businesses and manufacturers. Governor Rell has a different approach to it. It works for her. Different governors had different approaches also. I would say that this would be one thing that I would probably do different, because I am more of a hands-on type of individual.
Q: What are your thoughts on health care in the state and do you think that the state government should have a bigger role and a bigger say on the issue?
A: I believe that everyone in their state should have accessible, quality and
affordable health care. With that being said, quarter by quarter, we have between 94% and 95% of our state citizens that have some form of health care, be it through private pay, government programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and or our own state programs – Husky, Charter Oaks, etc. I am not the believer that we should change all 95% to fix the 5% problem. In fact there are individuals that are believed that will never get 100% on any plan, being our plan or a federal plan. So I would rather work to get as many folks and children and families in the 5% category that don’t have health care on some sort of program so that they do have health care. The federal government is in the process of doing this right now – there’s a tendency at times to look at an issue and instead of trying to find out why it’s not working, is try to basically throw the baby out with the bath water. In Connecticut, you’ve got 94-95% of the folks with health care. You have to look why that 5% doesn’t have health care and what we can do as a state to get there.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
Q: Do you think that the folks that do have healthcare, have one that is efficient and cost-effective both for those people and for the employers that pay for it.
A: Clearly there are areas we can look at in bringing the cost of healthcare down. It’s kind of interesting – if you ask someone that has healthcare, irrespective of which kind they have – how is your healthcare, the first thing they’ll tell you is that they don’t like the cost. But if you ask them would you get rid of that healthcare of would you switch to someone else, they all say “no, no, I like the service that I’m getting”. So, I don’t think that people that have healthcare are too upset with the service that they are getting, but they clearly need to do something more on the cost side.
Q: A large portion of the Connecticut coffers’ income comes from Stamford and Fairfield County, yet the Southwest region of CT often benefits comparatively less from state government grants than other areas of the state. Do you agree with this sentiment and what is your financial plan for our region?
A: We need to take a look at how we collect revenue. If you look at our income tax, and how it was designed, it was designed around high income earners and capital gains. And a lot of that occurs in Fairfield County and that’s why you see the concentration that you do here. I think we need to look at that balance. There are communities in Fairfield County, Bridgeport for one, that requires more dollars than, say, other communities in Fairfield County. There has to be a balance. I know I’ve heard the argument from folks who don’t live in Fairfield County that large investments are made in transportation for Metro North, the lifeline of Fairfield County into New York City and so on and so forth. But there has to be a balancing act. There always are going to be some that pay more than others, but I think it has to be a balance where folks feel comfortable in what they are paying and also in the service that they are getting. I believe that government should be affordable to those people who pay for it, accountable for those who we serve and also compassionate to those in need. And to do those three things requires a balancing act. It’s not an all or nothing situation.
Q: One of the ways that the current administration has been dealing with the budget deficit has been to cut spending for local arts groups across the state. What are your plans in regards to the state support for these and other organizations that raise the quality of life for our communities.
A: As you said, arts and tourism are a lifeline of our state. Tourism is part of that whole picture and tourism is an economic engine. We need to fund art programs, culture programs, tourism in appropriate ways and keep it going to showcase our state. Also, I think we need to engage our corporate citizens who do play a very important part, but over this economic downturn have probably not played as big a part in the arts as they did in the past, because of the economy. We need to continue to engage in them and as the governor I would be out there engaging them and having helping them help us and the municipalities to showcase those things that are very important to tourism in their areas.
Q: A lot of those organizations rely on a lot of support from the state. Do you think that the state should look to increase funding for them?
A: I think we need to do a better job funding them and look at other areas of revenue for tourism. Because, remember that all the arts really come around and provide some economic development in our areas, restaurants, [the arts are] bringing folks into our area. And I think that’s another major component of the whole economic development job creation component.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
Q: How do you assess the education system in the state and what should be done to improve it?
A: There has been a tendency to throw money at the issue and, obviously, money is important for education, but I think we need to take step back and we have to look at where we’re being successful and where we’re not. There are many many schools in our state and communities where children are excelling very well and there are many that are not. We need to understand why they are not excelling and put those efforts there. And maybe some of them are dollar related, some are more mentoring related and so on. I think of the charter schools who’ve had great success in communities and neighborhoods where traditional public schools don’t work. Why they work? Maybe our public school system is not working, maybe there’s something we can learn from there. But I don’t believe it’s just money, I believe it’s a comprehensive plan of money, mentoring and fostering a creative educational community for these children to learn in.
Q: Some say that not enough is being done to boost the infrastructure of the state. What is the road that you’d take with the aging infrastructure and increased demand for more services.
A: Well, we need to first make sure that the state government, including the legislature, stays out of the special transportation fund. These are the dollars that are set aside for maintenance and improvements to our transportation system. In the past, dollars have been siphoned out of there to balance our operating budget. We need to treat, and I’ve been saying this for months, our special transportation fund as we would treat our personal 401K investments. And our 401K’s, if we were to touch it, we get penalized for going in there. There has to be something like that for the legislature to stay out of there, because we cannot make improvements and than walk away from them. If you look at the business world, if you build a plant or a building, they don’t just put it up and they walk away and in 20 years come back and say “no we have to fix it”. There’s continuing improvements that have to be done. We need to do that with our roads, we need to do that with our rails, we saw that for 30 years we really did not do much with our train cars and now you are starting to see the first of [the new rail cars], but it costs us billions of dollars because of that neglect. We need to make a constant yearly investment in our infrastructure for transportation, because it is a very important component, particularly down here in Fairfield County and actually in the Hartford region for getting people back and fort to work.
Q: Your thoughts on the possibility of tolls on I-95?
A: Electronic tolls, as we know them today, and we all drive through them if we go to Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey, we see how they work, are a strong consideration particularly as it relates to transportation and additional revenue source. However, I also share the concerns of the border communities – Greenwich, Stamford – that traffic may leave the main highway and come through the local towns and create a congestion and wear on those roads. I think there are ways around those resolutions and I think it’s something we should take a strong look at and see if there’s a way we can work around where it not only creates revenue for the state and the special transportation fund, but also for maybe some to those border towns that are going to have to put up with maybe some of that congestion as it relates to [their] roads.
Q: What do you think of the possibility of increasing the sales tax?
A: Actually there was a plan that the Governor proposed that the legislature changed it somewhat this past year, to lower the sales tax. In lowering the sales tax the economic model show that you actually bring in more money than raising it, because what happens is, folks from particularly border towns in other states, would come into Connecticut and make purchases, and created an additional billion dollars or I think it was three quarters of a million dollars of additional cash flow that came into the state and added almost 8,000 jobs. Again, this is one example of where just because we are raising something there’s a tendency to say “oh, we’re going to make more money”. Sometimes you can look at lowering something to create economic stimulus around you.
Q: What do you think about President Obama’s proposal to cut federal spending starting in 2011 and how do you think that’s going to reflect on our state.
A: Oh, it’s going to be terrible. But again, that’s why we need to get our house in order. As I said earlier, the $8 billion dollar whole that was in this biannual budget that was just passed, about $3 billion of that was balanced with federal stimulus dollars. So, if there aren’t going to be those dollars or there aren’t going to be some of the dollars we are seeing get cut, it’s going to be more upon us to make sure that our spending is in line, but also that we’re creating jobs that create revenue.
Q: While the Democratic side gathers up a large pool of suitors for the highest office in Connecticut, the republican gubernatorial primaries appear to be headed to a similarly crowded affair. What is your chief difference with your opponents, who have so far announced that will be running, and what do you consider your biggest advantage over them?
A: I think my resume. If you believe that the next chief executive of this state that takes office in January 2011 is someone who has to have a strong business background; who has created jobs in the private sector, as I’ve done in my private business; has created jobs in the public sector, as I’ve done on this job; is someone you believe has legislative experience, served in the House for ten years... I’ve been the President Pro Tempore of the Senate for the last 3.5 years. So I know how to work with the legislature. I know the ego’s and the personalities that you have to deal with. If you believe that, at the end of this term I would’ve been four years in the executive chamber, so I understand how the governor should operate and what the governor’s role is in the state of Connecticut... I will have that. And I believe my life’s story. I think I have a life story that’s added some value to who I am as a person and what I bring to government. If that’s the resume of the person that you believe [should be] the next chief executive, I believe I’m the only person that has those qualifications. If you look at both the Republican and the Democratic side. There are those folks who have business experience. Period. There are those folks who have political experience. Period. But there’s no one, I believe, that has as well rounded resume as I do. And I think it’s my resume, and me as an individual, that makes me the best qualified candidate to be Governor in 2011.
Q: Who do you prefer to face in the elections in November?
A: I really don’t have a preference. It’s like playing baseball and going to the World Series. You know you’re going to play one of the nine teams that can potentially get there and you’re playing with the same team. It’s just a different playbook. Right now, I’m just out there, working hard, talking to constituents and hoping that they’re getting my message.
This interview was edited for brevity and grammar.
