Category: Anthony Rotunno
Bernanke Predicts ‘Modest’ Growth, Norwalk Officials Agree
DODD-BERNANKE
Norwalk Hour
Anthony Rotunno
Boston University Washington News Service
2/14/07
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a Senate committee Wednesday the national economy is facing a period of modest growth in 2007 as it moves out of the “substantial cooling in the housing market” that dramatically ebbed the rapid economic expansion of the past several years.
Norwalk city officials acknowledged the real estate slow down, and said the stabilization of the housing market represents a more normal economic cycle.
“It would be impossible to sustain the curve of the past four years,” Tad Diesel, the City of Norwalk’s director of marketing and business development, said in a telephone interview. “The curve is becoming normal by historic standards, but that probably indicates a more sustainable and predictable housing growth.”
Bernanke said the monthly sales of new and existing homes decreased by about 15 percent between mid-2005 and mid-2006 in his presentation on the country’s economic forecast for 2007 to the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the committee, said the recent usage of subprime mortgages and the depreciation of home values across the country is a concern of many families.
“Several credible reports say that we are facing a tidal wave of defaults and foreclosures, which would strip families of…wealth and economic security,” Dodd said.
In Fairfield County, an increased number of homes for sale has led to a recent slow down in the real estate market, according to Gary Smith, president and CEO of Fairfield County Bank. Smith said in a telephone interview his bank sees fewer home purchases now than in the past few years, but real estate prices have not fallen sharply despite the glut of houses on the market.
“In 2003, 2004 and 2005 you were seeing house prices go up by 10-15 percent a year,” Smith said. “Now we’re seeing the values of homes, in most cases, are remaining flat and, in some cases, they may go down a little.”
Despite the industry slump, Bernanke said the recent flattening out of home sales and increase in mortgage applications are tentative signs the fluctuating housing market is beginning to stabilize.
Diesel said more than 1,000 residential housing units are proposed for construction in Norwalk in the coming months. “Everything we read and study says the market will absorb these,” Diesel said. “The market is remaining strong enough that even projects that were considered for rental might be put on the sales market.”
Bernanke said although signs of stabilization have appeared, spillover effects from the cooling of the housing market may be more severe than anticipated. Smith said because consumers are not seeing “double digit growth in home values,” their spending patterns have become conservative.
“People were using the increased value of their homes to buy more by taking out home equity loans and purchasing consumer goods like new cars or second homes,” Smith said of past consumer spending habits. “I don’t necessarily see less home equity loans being taken out now, but what I do see is a more prudent use of their proceeds.”
A strong local economy and a small supply of available land for building are two reasons why the Fairfield County housing market has remained stable, according to Smith. Diesel said Norwalk’s growing business industry has offset economic strains placed on the city by the real estate slow down.
Bernanke also said the nation’s business sector remains in “excellent financial condition, with strong growth in profits.”
Both General Electric and Virgin Atlantic have expanded their operations in Norwalk. Diesel said these developments have helped the economy by producing “a very high level, high-quality work force.”
“I think there is cause for great and sustainable progress in our marketplace,” Diesel said of the Norwalk economy. “I see no indicators that would change that opinion.”
Shays Sits in Expensive Seat
FEC-SHAYS
Norwalk Hour
Anthony Rotunno
Boston University Washington News Service
2/8/07
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 – Rep. Christopher Shays , R-Conn., is sitting in one of the most expensive seats in the House.
Last fall, Shays and his Democratic opponent for the Connecticut 4th District seat, former Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell, raised more than $6.9 million combined for their 2006 election campaigns.
That sum made the House race New England's priciest and the 9th most expensive House race overall in the country, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent research group that tracks election money.
"It was a targeted race," Michael Sohn, Shays' campaign manager, said of the high-cost contest. "There were so many outside groups getting involved—you had [to have money] to get your message across."
For Shays and Farrell, who campaigned to represent the nation's 22nd wealthiest district, the money was not hard to find. According to PoliticalMoneyLine.com , a nonpartisan Web site that analyzes finance reports candidates file with the Federal Election Commission, Shays was listed as the 20th most prolific fundraiser among House candidates in 2006, raking in more than $3.8 million for his campaign. The site ranked Farrell, who raised just more than $3 million, 45 th on its list of the top fundraising candidates, which included both incumbents and challengers.
The Center for Responsive Politics reported the average amount raised by House incumbents in 2006 was approximately $1.2 million and the average amount raised by challengers as approximately $283,000. Massie Ritsch, communications director for the center, said the ability of both candidates to raise such high sums was in large part due to Shay's perceived vulnerability.
"Connecticut is a blue state; a blue area represented by a red Republican is a prime battleground," Ritsch said. "It gets on the national radar and money starts flowing in."
Of Shays' $3,827,216 total, he raised more than $2 million from in-state contributions. Sohn said Shays received more than 80 percent of this sum from contributions by individuals within the 4th District.
"We are a wealthier district, and people are able to write bigger checks," he said. "But there were tons of small donations, and the $5 donor is just as important."
Adam Wood, Farrell's 2006 campaign manager, said the "wealthier than average" district helped Farrell raise her $3,044,909 total.
"That's a lot of money for a challenger to raise," Ritsch said, pointing out that donors are more inclined to give when the candidate's chances of winning are high. "The Democrats thought they had a good chance of winning this seat."
The vulnerability of the 4th District's seat in 2006 resulted in a fundraising "arms race" between the two candidates, said Gary Rose, a political science professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield. He said early predictions of Shays' defeat developed a high-stakes political atmosphere and led to extreme fundraising on both sides.
"I think what distinguished this race from several others is that the challenger began with a substantial amount of name recognition and fundraising capabilities," Rose said. "For the past two election cycles, the eyes of the nation have been on this seat."
Sohn said because Farrell began her 2006 campaign immediately after Shays defeated her in 2004, there was no spending break for Shays' campaign between the two election cycles. He said the media's intensive focus on the race raised voters' awareness and the candidates needed to spend money to get their messages across.
Both Sohn and Wood said their candidates spent a large portion of the money they raised on mailings and media spots to influence voters. According to Center for Responsive Politics data, Shays spent more than $2.2 million on campaign mailings, television and radio ads, and Wood said Farrell spent approximately $2.6 million on media and mailings for her campaign. Because the 4th District is between the New York City and Hartford media markets, both campaign managers said, the high costs of advertisements necessitated aggressive fundraising.
"We paid about a quarter of a million dollars for five days [of advertisements] on New York TV," Sohn said. "People were getting piles of political mail every day … and postage has finally gotten expensive."
Concerns about the war in Iraq caused many residents to vote last fall, Wood said. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Farrell received more than $88,000 from the political action committee of Moveon.org – a non-profit political advocacy Web site supporting the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
"Not only was [Shays] vulnerable, but he was also deemed one of the strongest proponents of the war in Iraq," Rose said, which increased Farrell's ability to attract support from anti-war contributors. "The ideological component also contributed to the financing of the whole campaign."
Sohn said Shays' fundraising capabilities in any election year have depended a lot on the competitiveness of the race. Both Ritsch and Rose said if the multi-million dollar races in 2004 and 2006 are any indication, there is a good chance campaign fundraising totals will remain high in the 4th District.
"I think you could see it again, and it might even exceed 2006 levels," Rose said.
###
Dodd Proposes Paid Leave; Conn. Businesses Skeptical
DODD-FMLA
Norwalk Hour
Anthony Rotunno
Boston University Washington News Service
2/1/07
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 –Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., announced Thursday his intention to write legislation that guarantees paid leave for workers in times of family and medical emergencies.
Arguing that the United States is one of the few countries that have not yet established laws granting paid leave, Dodd said his legislation would provide workers with at least six weeks of time off with pay in a medical or family crisis.
“Families can’t take full advantage of the existing law because the time off is unpaid,” Dodd said. “Seventy percent of families who need family leave can’t take it because of financial reasons.”
Dodd was an original sponsor of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows qualified employees to receive up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. More than 50 million Americans have taken time to care for their families without losing their jobs since then, Dodd said, but he added that the United States still lags behind 163 countries that offer benefits like paid maternity leave.
Dodd said the new legislation is designed to reduce “critical moments” – situations when employees must risk a paid day of work to stay home and take care of a child, a parent or a spouse.
“It is a source of collective shame that the United States is at the very bottom,” Dodd said, referring to a study by researchers at Harvard and McGill universities that listed the United States as one of five out of 168 countries that does not offer women some form of paid maternity leave.
The senator also criticized the United States for not having laws to grant fathers paid paternity leave and for not guaranteeing Americans “a single day of paid sick leave.” Although he would not discuss specific amounts, Dodd said the paid leave program would be funded by employers, employees and the federal government.
According to the 2000 census, married couples with families comprise more than half of the population of Connecticut’s 4th Congressional District. Single women with children under 18 years old comprise just over six percent.
Michael Devine, the Norwalk Chamber of Commerce’s vice president of governmental affairs, said although Dodd’s proposed legislation is a “nice idea,” a paid leave program is something that the business community would most likely have to foot the bill for.
Devine said that guaranteeing paid leave to employees for family and medical emergencies could send businesses “down a slippery slope.” He said that with companies in Connecticut already losing manufacturing jobs to other places in the country and around the world, legislation like this threatens to further decrease businesses’ competitiveness.
“I think that the [financial] onus is going to be on the employer,” Devine said about the legislation’s “shared-cost” design. “It’s difficult enough for an employer in the state of Connecticut.”
Instead of granting paid leave, Devine said, legislation giving employees access to short-term disability plans might allow them to set aside extra money they could rely upon if they ever had to leave work under the existing law.
Dodd said that he hopes to introduce his legislation to Congress in the next couple of weeks with Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as the bill’s co-sponsor.
Dodd, who has introduced similar legislation in nearly every Congress since the original Family and Medical Leave Act was passed, said that the “exploding elderly population” over the next decade is another reason why the reform should be adopted.
“In most cases, it will not only be parents taking care of their children, but children taking care of their parents,” he said.
###
Shays Introduces Bill to Reform Campaign Finance Laws
SHAYS
Norwalk Hour
Anthony Rotunno
Boston University Washington News Service
1/30/07
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 – Confident that 2008 will mark the first $1 billion presidential race, Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., Martin Meehan, D-Mass., and David Price, D-N.C., introduced legislation Tuesday to reform the presidential public financing system established in 1974 in the aftermath of Watergate.
But even if promptly adopted, the proposed law would not affect next year’s election.
The spending limits the Federal Election Commission has set for candidates who accept public financing do not work in today’s multi-million dollar campaigns, Shays said at a press conference announcing the Presidential Funding Act of 2007.
Both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., opted out of receiving federal matching funds for their presidential primary campaigns in 2004 but accepted public funds in the general election campaigns. Shays said people do not have faith in the current system because it is no longer being used.
“Nobody who wants to be viable as a presidential candidate can work in the existing system,” Shays said. “They would be wise not to.”
The bill would increase the spending limit for presidential candidates from $45 million to $150 million in primary election campaigns and from $75 million to $100 million in general election campaigns.
It also would establish “safeguards” to prevent candidates who choose to participate in the public financing system from being outspent by their opponents who do not participate.
“As frontrunner candidates opt out, the current system acts as an incentive to their competitors to do the same or be crushed under superior fundraising without spending limits,” Meehan said.
Shays said he hoped the new system would create an incentive for candidates not to opt out because if they do and spend more than the set limit on their campaigns, their opponents who do participate will receive additional federal funds.
In addition to increasing spending limits and establishing safeguards, the bill also would prohibit candidates from refusing federal money for their primary campaigns but then accepting it for their general election campaigns.
It will not affect candidates running in the upcoming election because the bill would not put the new system in place until 2009. Price said that although it cannot change the spending rules by 2008, there is still time for Congress to get on board with the legislation for the 2012 presidential race.
“The system is on its sick bed – it’s not dead yet” he said. “It needs is a shot in the arm, not a funeral.”
Price also said that by increasing the federally funded limits on campaign spending and adopting appropriate safeguards, the bill would help long-shot presidential candidates run viable campaigns and open the field of candidates to more than just “those with enough money in the bank to run.”
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., introduced an identical bill an Tuesday
Shays and Meehan introduced a similar bill in the House last year, but it never moved out of committee. Shays said that a billion-dollar presidential race in 2008 should be impetus enough for Congress to pass the legislation.
“It’s up to those who are not running [for the presidency] to fix the system for those who are,” he said.
####
Local Parishioners Join Washington March
MARCH
Norwalk Hour
Anthony Rotunno
Boston University Washington News Service
1/25/07
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 – A group of 55 parishioners from St. Mary Roman Catholic Church in Norwalk and St. Aloysius Church in New Canaan trudged down a slushy Constitution Avenue earlier this week as participants of the 34th annual March for Life, a massive protest against the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States.
Led by St. Mary’s pastor, the Rev. Greg J. Markey, Monday’s trip marked the third year the church has sent area residents to participate in the event. His parish joined with St. Aloysius in organizing the trip.
According to Nellie Gray, president of the March for Life Fund – the non-profit, Washington-based organization that organizes the annual march – the St. Mary’s delegation joined protesters from across the world in the 10-block trek that ended on the Supreme Court’s steps. Gray estimated the number of marchers this year to be more than 200,000.
“There’s always sacrifice and inspiration,” Markey said about the march. “It’s always cold out, but the number of young people that come out and participate is truly inspiring.”
Roughly two-thirds of the St. Mary’s group were teenagers or younger, and Markey said that the overwhelming presence of young people at the event was a promising sign that the attitude toward abortion is changing. “The future is ours,” he said.
Stephanie Genovese, a 17-year-old senior at Trinity Catholic High School in Stamford, said that she’s marched with St. Mary’s for the past three years and that this year was by far the most exciting. As a member of both her school’s Crusaders for Life club and the St. Mary’s Youth Group, Genovese said that it felt great to participate in the march.
“Our bus to Washington was completely full, which has never happened before,” she said. “The speakers were very powerful, and the whole atmosphere was very moving.”
The trip was organized by Eileen Bianchini, the head of St. Mary’s Gospel of Life Society – a trans-diocesan anti-abortion group that, according to Bianchini, works to promote pro-life issues throughout the local community. She said that the level of enthusiasm at Monday’s march was infectious and that it brought a sense of hope to those demanding legislative change.
“Being at the march you begin to realize you can make a difference,” she said. “I thought it was fantastic.”
Bianchini said that she saw the day’s success as an increase in the momentum of the anti-abortion cause. According to Markey, however, the success of this year’s march will not necessarily ensure that his parish won’t find themselves back on the steps of the Supreme Court a year from now.
“Unfortunately, it is something we have to go back to every year,” he said. “There’s no more worthy cause than this. It’s something we cannot ignore.”
###
Connecticut Members of Congress Divided on Iraq, United on Energy
SOTU-NORWALK
Norwalk Hour
Anthony Rotunno
Boston University Washington News Service
1/25/07
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 – Despite President Bush’s plea for bipartisan support in his State of the Union address Tuesday, Connecticut members of Congress are still divided on the president’s plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
“This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in,” Bush said in front of the Democratic-controlled Congress. “It is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.”
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said in a statement that he was firmly opposed to Bush’s troop surge. “The nation has overwhelmingly rejected the direction this war has gone in, and the direction the president seems insistent on moving forward with.”
Dodd proposed a resolution earlier this week that would cap the number of American troops in Iraq, but it was not passed.
In separate statements, both Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., said it was imperative the United States not fail in Iraq.
“It would be disastrous to our national security if we fail in Iraq,” Lieberman said. “That is why Congress should not impede this new effort.”
Shays said that a bipartisan solution needs to be found, but that the Iraqi government needs to make “political compromises” before more troops are sent.
“The Iraqi government needs to confront the militia,” Shays said. “We need to set benchmarks with timelines. The failure to meet deadlines has to have consequences.”
Despite mixed feelings on Iraq, all three members of Congress said they supported Bush’s plan to diversify America’s energy supply. “For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil,” the president said in his speech. “And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists.”.
Shays said he looks forward to the day when the nation is not bound by relationships with foreign fuel providers. “Energy is a no-brainer,” he said in an interview following the address. “We can’t be held hostage by Russia, the Middle East or Venezuela. We should not be dependent on foreign fuel.”
Lieberman said energy independence is “a national security imperative.” Dodd said he was “heartened” by Bush’s plan, but that “actions speak louder than words.”
“I urge the president to meet with Republicans and Democrats…and demonstrate his willingness and desire to work to address these critical issues in a bipartisan manner,” Dodd said.
Lieberman said Congress should put progress before partisanship as it enters the new session. Shays agreed, saying he hoped the president’s address marked the beginning of an effective bipartisan dialogue.
But after the speech was delivered, Shays said that some reactions were not so reassuring.
“I listened to some of my colleagues’ comments to the president, and some were really outrageous,” Shays said. “You wonder if there was any interest in working on a bipartisan basis.”
###
Committee Approves Anti-Iraq Plan Resolution
DODD
Norwalk Hour
Anthony Rotunno
Boston University Washington News Service
1/24/07
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 – In a rebuke of President Bush, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Wednesday to voice its disapproval of his plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by 21,500.
The committee adopted a non-binding resolution by 12-9 only after voting down a proposal by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., that would have legally capped the number of troops deployed to Iraq.
“Escalation is a mistake,” Dodd said, arguing that his resolution would have allowed us “to be part of a conversation in a meaningful way and invite the president to respond and not ignore us.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., called the committee-approved resolution “an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake.”
The resolution, which states that it is not in the nation’s best interest to “deepen its military involvement in Iraq,” will be debated by the entire Senate next week.
“There is no strategy,” Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said of the president’s plan. “We better be damn sure we know what we’re doing before we put 22,000 lives back into that grinder.”
Hagel, a co-sponsor of the successful resolution, was the only Republican to vote for it. The rest of the votes were divided by party, although some Republican committee members said that they shared the Democrats’ skepticism of President Bush’s plan.
“I’m not persuaded adding troops is the right thing to do,” said Sen. Robert Corker, R-Tenn. “Many mistakes have been made on the part of this administration.”
Dodd had proposed a binding amendment that would have required the number of troops in Iraq be frozen at 137,500 – the number there before Bush announced his escalation plan – and mandated that the president acquire explicit congressional authorization before implementing any subsequent troop surges.
Dodd said that his legislation would have forced the president to listen to Congress’s views on Iraq. “The amendment will make the President answer us…and answer the people we represent,” he said before the vote.
Biden shot down Dodd’s amendment, saying its passage would be “just ratifying the status quo.” It was later rejected, 15-6. Biden, also a co-sponsor of the successful resolution, is one of many Democrats, like Dodd, who have already announced they will run for president in 2008.
“The president, under Sen. Dodd’s proposal, can proceed with his mission [to escalate],” Biden said. “Just setting the level of troops sends the wrong message.”
“Sen. Dodd’s resolution gives us the chance to express ourselves – it sends a clear message to the commander in chief that we want a political resolution in Iraq,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif, who supported the measure, said.
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., also proposed an amendment that would have supported an increase of American in troops in Iraq’s Anbar province, but not in Baghdad. His amendment lost, 17-4.
###
