Archive for category Politics
Bob Woodward Visits UConn Law
Posted by Matt Zagaja in Law, Politics on April 26, 2011
Woodward’s allegiance to the importance of evidence was most visible in his discussion of the birther movement and Donald Trump. Trump, he said, is the Joe McCarthy of the modern era. Making assertions about Obama’s birth without any shred of his own evidence. Woodward expressed disappointment in the press for airing Trump’s concerns as news without any evidence being presented by the Donald. Furthermore Woodward described the overwhelming evidence of Obama’s citizenship including the two newspaper announcements, the actual birth certificate, the republican officials in Hawaii that certified the legitimacy of the certificate, and in spite of Trump claiming that nobody knew Obama, Woodward pointed out there are individuals that have stories about him from his younger days. These individuals are just not well-known.
I am especially glad that Woodward expressed hope for the future of journalism. He noted that there are other journalists doing work just as good as his Watergate investigation and thinks that the Apples and Googles of the world will have to start putting up money in this area. While Woodward was concerned that Google and others are taking the advertising revenue from these sites I think that this problem will be solved in part by the pay walls. Like it or not the “free content” ride on the Internet is going to be over soon and we’ll have to subscribe to Internet websites much in the way we subscribe to physical magazines or newspapers.
Obama’s Deficit Speech
Posted by Matt Zagaja in Politics on April 14, 2011
Obama’s deficit speech today demonstrates the power of the bully pulpit given to the chief executive. After the speech there was much reaction on twitter, facebook, and mainstream news outlets. I prefer to listen to the speech myself instead of listening to the talking heads, so I’ve embedded the link below. I hope that you too will listen to it and make your own judgement.
Connecticut State Budget
Posted by Matt Zagaja in Law, Politics on February 19, 2011
A few days ago Governor Malloy unveiled his budget. Reaction has been mixed. At the heart of his plan are two separate proposals: $1.8 billion in new revenue and $2 billion in concessions from state employees. The budget also includes $758 million in spending reductions.
One good thing Gov. Malloy is doing is plugging the exemptions for various special interests in the state sales tax. These “tax expenditures” unfairly subsidize specific products and industries that were lucky enough to have lobbyists fight for them.
Criticisms largely stem from individuals that believe there should be greater revenue increases or greater spending cuts. Gov. Malloy has struck a careful balance by increasing tax rates to be comparable but competitive with neighboring states. Following the suggestion of Jon Olson and others advocating for tax increases may cause the rich to flee the state. This contention is supported by a report from Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy. A report from Princeton suggests that the impact of new taxation on migration is negligible. Taxes and money are not the only factor that individuals consider when choosing a place to live but it is reasonable to presume we are competing for individuals in the tri-state area that work in New York City. Rational rich people will choose the locale with the lower taxes and absent conclusive data it is better to be safe than sorry.
Rep. Cafero and other Republicans have criticized the budget for not cutting spending enough. The CT Mirror explains that this is due the structure of Gov. Malloy’s budget cuts:
The biggest cut in the Malloy budget technically involves a “lapse” or relatively undefined savings still to be achieved. The governor announced this week that it would come from state employee wage and benefit concessions as well as other savings tied to rank-and-file labor and management.
The Mirror article does a great job articulating the hurdles faced by the administration in obtaining these concessions and suggests that they may not get it all.
Overall the Malloy budget is a good one but it is not the final budget. We will likely see tweaks especially to deal with an inability to obtain the entire $2 billion in concessions from the unions. Connecticut already runs a fairly lean governmental operation and there is little room to make major structural changes without impacting a safety net or causing local property taxes to rise.
Campaign Finance Debate Continues After Citizens United – NYTimes.com
Posted by Matt Zagaja in Law, Politics on February 8, 2011
An interesting article and perspective on Citizens’ United from the New York Times…
In the year since the Supreme Court handed down its 183-page decision in Citizens United, the liberal objection to it has gradually boiled down to a single sentence: The majority was wrong to grant First Amendment rights to corporations.
via Campaign Finance Debate Continues After Citizens United – NYTimes.com.
Yankee Institute’s Irresponsible "Journalism"
Posted by Matt Zagaja in Politics on January 21, 2011
Splashed over CT Capitol Report is a headline about the salaries being paid by the Malloy administration to its employees. They link to an article at the conservative Yankee Institute that analyzes the cost of the pension increases for these employees.
However that analysis is misleading. It fails to consider the following:
1. The pension system was in place before the Malloy administration came into power. You cannot blame him for the actions of previous administrations.
2. The cost of increased pensions must be viewed as an opportunity cost. The legislators were getting pensions anyways. The only way to minimize the pensions under the formula would be to limit the hiring pool to individuals outside state government. Otherwise any person who has served the state for the same number of years would get a similar pension bump . The cost is unavoidable unless the salaries are lowered, or we restrict hires from working in state government after they work in the administration.
3. Can the salaries be justified? Are they appropriate for the level of responsibility and work given to the employees, and are they in sync with similar positions and responsibilities elsewhere?
4. Many of these legislators took a risk by leaving safe seats to serve in administration jobs that might not be theirs in four years.
It appears the Yankee Institute is happy to grab headlines without considering all angles of the issues it analyzes.
Ask MLN – How can town committees engage people online?
Posted by Matt Zagaja in Politics on January 16, 2011
I know people typically post articles and their own analysis but today I have a question to pose to the community. I am working with my town committee to reach out to people in town that may be wandering the internets. We setup a facebook page and we have a website. However these things should not exist in a vacuum. We’re doing this with the goal of getting people involved. We want more members that will participate and we want people that might consider serving as a commissioner or candidate.
What do you think we should be doing to reach out? Where are Connecticut townspeople hanging out online?
How Data Can Deceive
Posted by Matt Zagaja in Politics on January 12, 2011

Recently the Torrington Register-Citizen published a map of results from the 2010 Connecticut race for governor. This map is for all intents and purposes correct. Each town or city colored red or blue indicates which candidate won the city. The Register-Citizen raises several questions about the conflicting priorities of the cities versus suburban and rural towns. Yet they ignore the fact that Dan Malloy did not win by cities alone. Plenty of suburban voters chose Dan Malloy as well and we can see this in Susan Bigelow’s map. By mapping out the results with percentages Bigelow presents a more accurate representation of the state.
A Clarification About My Article in Pro Se
Posted by Matt Zagaja in Politics on December 1, 2010
Recently I co-authored an article in the UConn Law student newspaper Pro Se about the changes in the House of Representatives. Due to time constraints a rough draft I wrote was edited by the other author and put to print without a final check on the article by me. The final article is mostly correct. However it suggests that as a result of the election the Republican party is the dominant party in Washington. My interpretation would be that they are merely the dominant party in the House of Representatives, as the Democrats still control the executive branch and the Senate. Though there are certainly interesting arguments to be had in regards to which way the Supreme Court leans. For reference or those generally interested in a quick and dirty summary of the changeover in the house I’ve included my original rough draft below:
Every two years the entire membership of the United States House of Representatives is up for re-election. It is typical for the House to change parties during a mid-term election and this year was no exception. Nationwide Republicans have gained 61 seats and as a result are now the majority party in the House of Representatives (five seats remain undecided as of this article). With the majority the Republicans gain more power including nominating Rep. John Boehner for Speaker. With that position he becomes second in the line-of-succession for the Presidency. Republicans will now chair the various House committees which will give them the ability to set the agenda of the body. This includes latitude to conduct investigations. Rep. Darrell Issa of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee has pledged to conduct seven hearings a week and to arm federal inspectors general with subpoena power to insure compliance with Congressional requests for information.
Meanwhile Democrats have had their influence greatly reduced. By moving into the minority they lost a leadership position. Traditionally after a defeat the Speaker steps down from leadership but Rep. Nancy Pelosi made clear that she intended to stay. On November 17 she handily won her election for minority leader against the more moderate Rep. Heath Shuler. By keeping her position Rep. Steny Hoyer was left to battle with Rep. James Clyburn for the position of minority whip. Pelosi resolved the conflict by creating a new position for Clyburn that would be in between the whip and minority leader. Rep. John Larson kept his position as Democratic Caucus Chair. This means the Democratic Caucus will remain largely unchanged from the previous Congress.
My Response to Tom Foley
Posted by Matt Zagaja in Politics on November 22, 2010
Today former GOP Candidate for Governor Tom Foley penned this Op-Ed piece in the Hartford Courant about his experience in running for office. He talks about the process and explains this:
Politicians win elections by making promises. Voters decide if the
promises are the ones they like and whether, if elected, the candidate
will make good on them. Many factors play into the calculus of the
voter’s choice — likability, plausibility, personal credibility, a
candidate’s record and the views of opinion leaders, to name a few.
Foley then proceeds to cynically describe the politics in contrast to business and insinuate the politicians habitually lie. He concludes by recommending the creation of a statute that would require politicians to be truthful.
If the former ambassador wishes to understand what happened in this election he needs to detach himself from his own race and look at things from a broader perspective. He ran a race in conjunction with Linda McMahon and together they spent millions of dollars to woo voters. The narrative they ran with was that of being outsiders. Consultants that could fix state government by not being a part of it. Such a narrative is common especially in anti-incumbent years as we’ve had. It does not sell in Connecticut.
In business when you apply for a job you send them your resume. Your employer looks at your experience, skills, and personality among other traits. Experience is what won out this year. Though Foley had been an ambassador to Ireland he downplayed that and instead focused on his business experience. In contrast Dan Malloy embraced his role as a public servant and all his years as Mayor of Stamford. McMahon played the outsider card as well and handily lost to Richard Blumenthal. The advantage that Blumenthal had is that Connecticut voters already knew him. He spoke at their kids graduations, and has been perpetually present at political events in the state.
This experience will certainly help these legislators and constitutional officers navigate the tricky waters of balancing budgets and producing policy. They can figure out how government might stay afloat amidst this changing tide and try and ease the pain. However at the end of the day the state is still in an economic crises. This crises is as much the product of the free-market as it is of the government. We need business talent and we need it in business. We need all the Republican candidates who were outsiders to go back to doing what they do best to help lift us out of this mess. Politicians cannot and will not solve this problem on their own.
Quick Comment on the Election
Posted by Matt Zagaja in Politics on November 6, 2010
Sites such as the CT Mirror have been posting articles about the Connecticut gubernatorial election. Based on posts I’ve seen on twitter and facebook along these media stories it appears that people are overblowing the problems. Even with the problem ballots tossed Malloy has a win that is greater than needed for a recount. Certainly there was some negligence in Bridgeport but ultimately that negligence will not have had an impact on the final outcome. Furthermore are some people trying to blame Susan Bysiewicz, who has little control over the matter. It was probably a mistake for her to hold the press conference and put herself in front the spotlight considering she lacked control over this, but I don’t think she can be blamed for the problems that occurred over the past few days..
