.

Malloy: Local Leaders Can Help Grow Jobs

During an address to the Council of Small Towns today the governor also defended his education reform plan.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy told the leaders of small towns today that in his first full year in office he fulfilled his vow, made to them last year, not to balance the state’s budget on their backs.

“What a difference a year makes,” Malloy told about 200 people, many of them local leaders from Connecticut’s 169 towns who gathered in Cromwell for the annual meeting of Connecticut Council of Small Towns. “When I was sworn in as governor … I was handed a budget that was $3.6 billion out of balance. I came here and I know there were a bunch of folks that were worried about what was going to happen to local governments. We proposed not to balance the budget on your backs and we didn’t. We met our commitments. We’re now looking forward to what we do next.”

What he plans to do next, Malloy said, is pursue his other promises to maintain the fiscal discipline he said he brought back to state government, grow jobs and reform Connecticut’s education system, three initiatives that Malloy said go hand in hand.

And he challenged the local leaders to join him in his efforts to bring jobs back here and properly educate the state’s children.

“We will balance our budgets and we will maintain a level of fiscal discipline that hasn’t been present in Connecticut for some time. We will continue to promote job growth. No net job growth puts pressure on local governments (that are) reliant on property taxes more than any other state in the nation. If we don’t get our  (jobs) pipeline going again, if we don’t get our economy going again, we’re going to suffer for years.”

His administration, Malloy said, is trying to make it easier for businesses to locate here by streamlining the state regulatory process. For instance, he said, the departments of transportation and environmental protection have been directed to process completed applications within 60 days after they are submitted. He said local governments can help by streamlining their own regulatory processes.

“I’m not telling you that you have to do anything in your community that you don’t want to do, but we have to get away from being known as a state that gets tied up in the regulatory process. (Businesses) are wary about coming to our state because it takes so long to get local and state decisions.”

He also used his appearance before the town leaders to promote his education reform plan, which includes proposals to overhaul teacher certification, tenure and evaluations. In his administration, Malloy said, maintaining fiscal discipline will extend to the money that is spent in local classrooms.

“No community will lose money in (state education) funding and many communities will gain funding, lowest performing districts will gain money,” he said. “But we’re not simply going to give people money any more. We’re going to hold them responsible for results. Teachers and administrators need to be held responsible in the classrooms.”

During a brief press conference following his address to COST, Malloy took aim at critics of his reform plan, many of them teachers’ unions, who have said his administration is seeking to implement some of the reforms too quickly.

“I don’t find statements about moving too rapidly helpful,” the governor said.

R Eleveld March 07, 2012 at 01:07 AM
Canadian banks. I do not believe have stricter rules. However, in Canada, there are only I believe seven banks. They do not happen to have thousands of banks like in the US. Also in Canada the 80/20 rule is very, very strict. That means to buy a house you need to have some assets and if you don't have the assets you don't get the house simple. In the United States our attitude has been every American should have a house. The reality is not every American should have a house. The 80/20 rule is considered a conservative approach to lending. Anything less than 20% down has higher levels of risk. When you go to almost 0 down, there's no skin in the game and the risk of foreclosures increases greatly. It is commonly referred to as a moral risk. You saw what it did and it will happen again.
R Eleveld March 07, 2012 at 01:19 AM
@Spiff, is correct in his comments. The Republicans did attempt to try to bring this under control but there was not enough support among Democrats or Republicans to make it happen. Congressmen are lawyers. They are not financial people and have absolutely no idea on how economics works. They are very good at counting votes and collecting money to run for office. Very typical of bank regulators did idea to shut the barn door after the barn is empty. The president says we should leave credit, the bank regulators say we need more safety and thus more reserves meaning is available. It is an ongoing possible between the regulated and the regulate towards and the politician.
R Eleveld March 07, 2012 at 01:22 AM
@Maria, when your job has no risks attached to your decisions then you make bad decisions. It is not an issue of caring. It's an issue of trying to make as much money as you can. With the backing and the tacit approval of the U.S. Congress and the US government. It becomes very easy to make a small mass a tremendously large mass very quickly. Main Street, Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street are all culpable. The greatest blame can arguably be given to Main Street the bad loans, and Pennsylvania Avenue, meaning the president and Congress. Use the 80/20 and the risks this happening yet again are greatly diminished. Not saying it won't happen because it will the damage will just be less.
R Eleveld March 07, 2012 at 01:27 AM
Robert securitization became very large business after the S&L collapse. Why it was a way of transferring the risk. The greatest security generator was the government. The most important factor relative to Canadian loans is that they require a down payment. Skin in the game. Relative the securitization, everybody was at table. The biggest winners were Main Street. Of course, according to your concept Wall Street is ever powerful omnipresence and dwarfs the US federal government. Wall Street was a very large contributor to Obama in the last cycle. Why? If according to you, the Republicans are better for business. Why would be back Obama?
Susan Schoenberger March 07, 2012 at 11:31 AM
The comments on this thread are now closed. Please review Patch's terms of service before commenting.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »