Reform Educational Funding System
The current system for allocating state education funding is a failure. The current sharing formula favors the biggest cities over scores of suburban and rural communities. Between 1996 and 2003, education aid actually decreased by 2.2% for suburban districts. Large urban areas like Hartford receive the most aid, yet supply income tax contributions that are only average despite relatively large populations.

Madison's per pupil expenditures are the 4th lowest in the ERG (Educational Reference Group.) In 2003, Madison spent $9,225 per pupil, while the state average was $10,479. Madison ranks 149th out of 169th in per pupil spending.

Properly funding our education systems is a constant source of tension. Our citizens are caught between their desire to keep taxes down and their need for a top educational system. I intend to make the state assume more of the burden. I will fight for Madison and North Guilford so that the towns of our district receive their rightful share of state education funding. More money from the state will also decrease the tax burden on our citizens.

The ECS formula has been in place for over a decade and has changed almost every year since it was created in 1988. In 1992, the legislature passed a statutory cap on the growth of the ECS grants to help control the rising cost. This cap has mostly reduced grants to smaller suburban towns. The current foundation spending level is $5,891. Madison receives around $240 per student and Guilford $750 per student. In 1995 the formula was completely overhauled, however the cap remained in effect. Today the formula is as complex as ever requiring more than 70 calculations.

Over the past few years, the legislature has failed to make substantive changes to this problematic formula and has chosen to circumvent it by providing supplemental grants. Each year since 2001, the legislature has allocated annual ECS appropriations through across the board percentage increases (or decreases)) to prior year grants and supplemented these grants with proportional distributions of specified amounts of money to capped towns. This is what has happened this past year with the across the board 2% increase that Madison and Guilford realized.

Lifting the cap and holding towns harmless have been part of ongoing efforts to devise a more equitable way to distribute state education dollars. Lifting the cap has to be a goal of the legislature. Holding towns harmless just maintains the status quo, guaranteeing that specific towns and cities cannot receive less than they did the year before - even if enrollment declines or any number used in the calculation changes. Madison is not on the hold harmless list. Instead we are on a target list for potential decreases that make education appropriations a moving target for our Board of Education to deal with.

Madison's First Selectman Tom Scarpati is serving on the Governor's Task Force concerning the ECS Formula Reform. I have had an opportunity to attend several of those meetings. It is clear that increasing the foundation, which has not been increased since 1999, would provide some relief to towns like Madison and North Guilford but would still not address the fact that the formula just doesn't work. The time has come for real reform.

Increase Special Education Funding
I am in support of increasing state funding of special education programs. Presently, the federal government covers 40% of special education costs and the local municipalities pick up a significant amount of the remainder. In 2005, 18.5% of our school budget was for special education costs. I will support legislation that will require the state to pay the full 60% that is not paid by the federal government. This will allow the schools to use that money to fund other programs that will benefit our students. Towns such as Madison and Guilford continue to be penalized for good fiscal management in providing the best education for our special needs population.

Madison and North Guilford provide excellent programs for our special needs children. But more needs to be done. Both Boards of Education struggle with an unknown moving appropriation level that hinders them in doing all we can do for our children. I will work hard to ensure a level playing field for educational opportunities and life experiences for every child.

I support school choice
Magnet and charter schools are making a difference in educational opportunities across the state. This is especially evident in our major cities. The success of schools such as the Amistad Academy in New Haven cannot be denied. I have visited this amazing school and have seen first hand how inner city children can find phenomenal success when given the opportunity. It is unfortunate that Connecticut, unlike New York, does not mandate that the educational funding follow the student to the school of their choice.

TAXES

Each year the Tax Foundation publishes its "Tax Freedom Day" report, which lets people know just how long they have to work in order to pay off all their taxes in a given year. And, each year, Connecticut is at or near the top. This year Tax Freedom Day for Connecticut citizens was May 12th- nine days later than it was last year, still the worst of any state in the nation. This is one indicator that we are going in the wrong direction and continue to.

In 2005 the state spending growth rate was the highest it had been in over a decade. All of the signs were there to cut spending: recent tax increases, large projected deficit, slowest job growth rate in the nation and the real possibility of breaking the spending cap. The majority of legislators ignored the signs and the 8.8% spending increase broke the constitutional-spending cap by hundreds of millions of dollars. Despite over $100 million in ongoing savings as a result of the federal Medicare Part D prescription drug program, the state still imposed a $5,000 per year tax on nursing home patients in order to get more money for the federal government. The 2005 budget also included a new combined estate and gift tax, which has a cliff that begins taxing at the first dollar of estate valued at $2 million or more. The tax rate goes as high as 16%.

In the 2006, the final budget cut about $100 million from the Democratic Majority budget proposal, increased the Governor's spending by only $16 million and saved a good portion of the surplus for the Rainy Day Fund. A House Republican priority to fully fund teaches' pensions received widespread support and was adopted as part of the budget adjustment. Unfortunately, the House did not take the next step and adopt a resolution for a constitutional amendment that fully funds the Teachers' Retirement System.

The Estate Tax or "Death Tax" as it is called is clearly a form of double taxation. As the baby boomers move into retirement, this tax will encourage them to claim residency in other states, thus reducing revenues. Amendments over the past two sessions to repeal the tax, eliminate the cliff or to eliminate farmland and primary residence from the calculation have all failed. This tax actually encourages Connecticut citizens not to save for their retirement.

We have to do more to protect seniors and their pensions. Connecticut is one of only seven states to offer no exemptions on veterans pension income and one of only four states to offer no exemption of any kind on pension income. A small concession was made to exempt 50% of veteran's pensions starting in 2008. An amendment to offer this exemption to all pensioners was defeated. Like the estate tax, an income tax on pensions makes it difficult for our seniors to stay in our state.

Connecticut motorists pay more in gas taxes than motorists in any other state in the continental US, approximately 64 cents on every gallon: 25 cents per gallon in state tax, approximately 20 cents per gallon in the state gross receipts tax and about 19 cents in federal tax. Our gas prices are the second highest in the continental US. It is no coincidence that gas prices throughout the country are typically high in states with higher gas taxes.

Legislation this year that would have cut the gross receipt tax assessed on energy utility bills was only passed temporarily. Ensuring little or no relief for Connecticut residents and businesses. This proposed cut would have cut the gross receipt tax assessed on electric bills from 8.5% to 5% for commercial and industrial customers and from 6.8% to 4% for residential customers. Passing this amendment temporarily means that no vote will be taken on the underlying bill or the amendment. This is away of not voting in open forum and not taking any real action on offering relief.

BUSINESS GROWTH

Connecticut lags far behind the national average in job creation. In fact, in 2005 Connecticut had the same number of jobs that it had in 1990. Bill Richardson, Democratic Governor of New Mexico, referring to recent cuts in income and capital gains tax, said" This is our way of declaring to the world that New Mexico is open for business…. After all, businesses move to states where taxes are falling, not rising."

Tax cuts such as property tax exemption for manufacturers' machinery and equipment, are a good start, but more has to be done to encourage business to create jobs. The Regional Cost of Doing Business study conducted by Economy.com ranks Connecticut as the 5th highest in the cost of doing business and the 15th lowest in growth rate. Also, the Corporation for Enterprise and Development (CFED) ranked Connecticut last in prospects for long term job growth, which parallels the Census Bureaus projections for our state to have one of the slowest population growth rates. And finally, the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index ranks Connecticut number 37 among all states.

I fully intend to support business legislation that encourages growth in Connecticut. We need to really move forward to create a business friendly environment. Workers compensation, energy costs, healthcare and tax reform are some of the first issues to be dealt with. . After running a small business for nearly 13 years - I am made aware daily how difficult it is to grow and be successful in this state.

EMINENT DOMAIN

I am in favor of reforming eminent domain laws. In June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in agreement with the Connecticut Supreme Court that government could take private property and transfer it for private economic development. The decision in Kelo v. New London sent shock waves across the country, prompting 44 states to consider laws curbing the use of eminent domain. Twenty-seven states have passed such laws. Unfortunately, Connecticut, despite support from 89% of its citizens, has done nothing to stop eminent domain abuse.

In 2005 an amendment to prohibit the government from taking owner occupied homes for private economic development was presented for a vote in the House of Representatives. The amendment failed with all Republicans voting in favor, as well as seven Democratic Representatives voting yes. The seven Democratic votes supporting a stop to eminent domain abuse included a supporting vote by Guilford's own Pat Widlitz. This amendment simply proposed to prohibit the use of eminent domain for private development if it involved owner occupied homes.

ENVIRONMENT

In Connecticut we have a unique interaction with and reliance on our environment. I fully support measures taken to protect the Hammonasset River and our fragile Long Island Sound. Our towns face common problems but our resources are spent individually and inefficiently. When I am elected, I will push for programs that provide coordinated environmental planning so all towns can leverage their resources against this common problem.