I'm in

The financial report for this quarter is out, and my campaign’s bank account, quite frankly, is about as flush as the state treasury.

I am down, financially speaking, but I am not out. In fact, I am very much in: I have ended my exploratory committee and have formed a candidate committee for governor of Connecticut.

There is too much at stake now for me to fold my tent. Business as usual, and politics as usual, will only push Connecticut further along its path to financial ruin.

I entered this campaign last October because it was clear to me as first selectman that the state had lost its grip on reality—and was putting our cities and towns at risk. Nothing I have seen since then has convinced me we have come to terms with our situation.

Connecticut is facing economic disaster of almost unbelievable proportions. Or, I should say, refusing to face it, with the most egregious case of political denial I have ever seen.

And that’s why I am running for governor, and will do so until I believe we are on the way to correcting our course, or until I am elected governor—whichever comes first. Here’s what this means:

First, we must recognize that we cannot simply cut our way out of this crisis. Yes, we must make significant cuts, but we must raise revenue as well. I have proposed instituting tolls and making our income tax more progressive. I have heard no one else come forward with a proposal that would raise revenues.

And second, Connecticut must serve its cities and towns—not the other way around. This means end unfunded mandates, stop forcing us to increase property taxes and permit us to regionalize as we see fit.

I don’t have great personal wealth. I don’t have name recognition built over years of statewide campaigning. What I do have is the willingness to tell the truth and do the hard work.

I am down but not out because Connecticut itself is down but not out. We still have the time to turn it around. We can create jobs in Connecticut and we can return to the great state we once were.


Rudy

Don't show me the money

Yesterday's Hearst newspapers profiled statewide candidates through the lens of personal wealth. I was interested but not surprised to learn that, of all the candidates reporting, my income most reflected that of a public servant.

I'm fine with that. After all, you don't go into this for the money. But I disagree with the article's unwritten implication—that great wealth is some kind of moral disqualification for office. Many great and selfless American leaders have come from privilege, starting with a Mr. G. Washington (who was the 59th richest American in history, measuring wealth as a percentage of GNP). And don't forget what the R stood for in FDR.

Further, I have great admiration for those who have become wealthy through ingenuity and hard work. Those two traits are the hallmarks of successful elected leaders.

But I continue to take issue with those would spend their wealth to buy positions of political power. Connecticut's Citizens' Election Program was hailed as a progressive step toward driving money from politics. And even though a recent study found 79% of CTers support the program, it is currently in jeopardy—and support for it in Hartford seems to be lukewarm.

Will Rogers once observed that "a fool and his money are soon elected." Only with public campaign finance can we ever prove him wrong.

A budget without a battle

I didn't post on this blog last week, or on Facebook, for that matter. Too busy. It was budget week in Ridgefield.

Budget week is intense, but we did in one week what the state couldn't do in two months (and still hasn't done, when you look at where we are).

In Ridgefield, as in many municipalities, the budget is a roll-up-your-sleeves process. You gather all the players together, put aside partisanship and posturing, and create a balanced, responsible plan. And if you don't get the job done . . . well, you just do, that's all.

Meanwhile, our state legislature passed a wildly out-of-balance budget 60 days late,  and then the governor refused to sign it, or to veto it. All efforts to fix it have failed miserably.

In Ridgefield, if we can't afford something, we don't spend on it. If it's something we absolutely must spend on, we raise the money. And if we have to borrow, we make a plan for paying it back. We have to behave responsibly.

From our state leaders, we get instead budgetary accounting tricks and shell games. We'd never tolerate that in Ridgefield—and we shouldn't tolerate it in Hartford.

I know the state budget is more complicated than Ridgefield's, but that's no excuse. Connecticut has an Office of Fiscal Analysis, teams of legislative staffers and financial people in every state department. They have the resources and the time to get it done. What they lack is a sense of responsibility to the people.

We need to replace them with leaders who know how to get the job done.

Rudy

No, we're not taking "no" for an answer

One of the things I hear often in my job is "no." No, we're not ready. No, we can't do it that way. No, the funding is going elsewhere.

And an important part of my job is not taking no for an answer.

For example, our largest local employer was told no, they couldn't expand on their current campus, and therefore they said, no, we're not staying in Connecticut. I called together all  parties and said, that's not good enough. I wouldn't take no for an answer. And today, they are still our biggest employer (and taxpayer).

Over the past week, Connecticut lost out on two important rounds of federal grant funding, one for transportation and one for health. Over a billion dollars in funding we needed, but didn't get.

I would not take no for an answer.

Connecticut is one of the most densely populated states, with urgent transportation needs. We're also the most rapidly aging, and we need the health funding to make sure we have the needed care available.

I would be on the next plane (or train!) to Washington. Together with our congressional delegation, I'd work my way up the ladder until I was face to face with the decision-makers, and I would explain why this decision cannot stand. Why it is counter to all our administration's priorities to shut us out. And I wouldn't leave until I had assurance the decision would be revisited, and that we would not be shut out of future rounds.

When it comes to leadership, what part of "no" don't I understand? Any of it.

Rudy