President of the United States George W. Bush arrives in Connecticut for a one day business trip - a classic “out and back” as the Platinum Class Frequent Flyers would say.  #43 is signing a Presidential Proclamation at 9am in honor of Malaria Awareness Day, making the quick hop up to Hartford for a visit to the Northwest Boys and Girls Club, and then attending a fundraiser before shuttling back to Washington, D.C.

More than a century after Colonel W.C. Gorgas and the building of the Panama Canal, malaria continues to ravage sub-Saharan Africa.  President Bush’s Malaria Initiative set a goal of reducing the number of malaria deaths in 15 Africans nations by 50%.  Just two years later, the President’s Malaria Initiative has provided malaria nets for beds, medicine, and other related items to more than 25 million Africans.  Today, President Bush will highlight the role of the Boys and Girls Club in fighting malaria by visiting the Northwest Hartford Boys and Girls Club.

Following that event, the President will attend a private fundraiser for the Connecticut Victory ‘08-Cappiello for Congress joint committee in Kent, Connecticut.

We should have some photos, and perhaps some video, posted up later this afternoon.

With House Speaker Jim Amann heading toward the exits, House Majority Leader Chris Donovan pushed through a health care proposal which is a first step toward a single-payer government run system.

The 102-43 vote fell along party lines, with all but one Democrat voting for the proposal and all Republicans opposing it. The law would allow cities and towns, nonprofit groups and small businesses with fewer than 50 employees to join the state’s gigantic insurance pool.

The liberals have been pushing this idea since 1991 when then-Comptroller Bill Curry first proposed it. That should tell us everything.

As usual, the liberals have claimed this will cut costs, allow more people to get cheaper health care and somehow improve life for all. What this bill  is a outright grab at the private health care industry that will potentially add hundreds of millions of dollars to both local taxpayers and state taxpayers.

Why, because the whole premise of it defies both economics and common sense. Anyone and everyone in the insurance and health care

The first “lie” of the proposal is that 30 percent of all health costs hover around 30 percent of each health care dollar in Connecticut.

That is a complete falsehood.

85% of health care costs are for medical care, and pooling does nothing to reduce those costs–and reducing the cost of medical care is the core issue policymakers should be focusing on to truly make health insurance more affordable and accessible. The claims of employees participating in the state pool would be the same as they would have been under any private plan. This bill does not address the single largest cost driver of any insurance plan..claims.

In reality, 15% of the health care premium dollar constitutes administrative costs. With Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimating that state and federal taxes account for about 5 of the 15 points only about 10 points of cost is attributable to “overhead”. Focusing on this aspect of the total premium dollar will not result in significantly lower premium if in fact lower premium can be achieved without adversely impacting the delivery of much needed healthcare customer service. Someone needs to help employees with claims and to otherwise help “navigate” the healthcare system. The bill does not in any material way address this all important issue…delivery of customer service.

The proposed bill allows for the plan to “cherry pick”. The pool can accept or reject applicants. This would cause an uneven playing field in the marketplace and would have a disastrous effect on groups that would not be allowed in the plan.

There has been no actuarial study to determine the true cost of extending the state plan to these additional groups. How can we be sure of the true costs for Connecticut residents if faulty assumptions are being used? We certainly do not need any more unfunded liabilities like the 21.7 billion that we currently have for the state retiree health care costs.

The purported financial advantages of the bill are to come from its ability to “pool” a large group thereby bringing about savings from administration costs and from its large purchasing power. Medicare is a very large pool and it has higher administration costs than do private plans which is one reason why private Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans compete very effectively with traditional Medicare and Medicare Supplements.

Groups entering the state plan would be “locked in” for a minimum “interval” of 3 years. It is not purely voluntary because if groups may not qualify for admitance based on prior So, the pool under the bill operate like any other plan. Any other plan is subject to annual change based on the working of the very competitive private marketplace.

The plan would operate outside the Connecticut small group reform insurance laws and considerable disruption in the marketplace would ensue. The very department that is authorized to regulate state insurance matters will have NO authority. Why are the experts being excluded? In brief, if this bill passes and the pool is set up as planned, an unfair playing field would be established where the pool, not having to adhere to small group reform laws, would have an unfair competitive advantage over those insured in the regular small group marketplace controlled by small group reform measures.

Any meaningful administration savings will mean a significant reduction in service. The bill has proposed only three new positions in administration under the proposed plan to support delivery, education and service of its members. If service suffers, this initiative cannot help but fail as those municipalities and small business participants opt to leave the pool three years down the road.
So what do we have? Basically, a state run health plan that takes the bests risks, doesn’t gurantee anything except increased costs to taxpayers when the entire premise breaks down.

This is just of the begining. Donovan is a commited liberal and union activists. His private sector job is to promote the interests of the UConn college professors.

There should be no doubt what our new challenge is. But you have to hand it to them. The Democrats don’t stop coming until somone stops them.

Early today, the State Senate adopted new criminal sentencing guidelines but Democrats defeated the Republicans “three strikes” provision.

The “three strikes” amendment, which would automatically send violent career criminals away for life, failed on a 19-16 vote. Three Democrats, fearing retribution at the polls, found their way to the Republican side, including State Sen. Tom “Big Boy” Gafffey, D-Meriden, State Sen. Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, who often joins Republicans on fiscal and crime issues and State Sen. Paul Doyle, D-Wethersfield, who will be facing a strong challenge again this year from Rocky Hill businessman Ralph Capenera.

The entire debate was captured by the Hartford legislative reporting duo duo of Chris Keating and Mark Pazniokas:

“Under pressure to respond after two deadly home invasions in the past nine months, the state Senate voted early Thursday morning to strengthen the state’s criminal law and allocate $10 million for enhanced crime-fighting.

The bill passed by 32 to 3 at about 2:20 a.m. after the Senate Democrats withdrew a previous amendment that had prompted a sharply bitter debate with Republicans. The final version gained bipartisan support after lawmakers said the bill would authorize a judge to double the penalty following a second violent crime and triple the penalty after a third offense - up to a maximum of life in prison for a violent felon.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and legislators have all called for tougher laws after the triple slayings in Cheshire last summer and the abduction, rape, and killing of a frail, cancer-stricken, elderly woman who could not defend herself last  month in New Britain.

Republicans and Democrats clashed sharply for the second time of the late-night debate when Republicans offered a “three strikes” amendment that would force judges to automatically sentence a criminal to life in prison after conviction of a third violent felony. In a relatively close vote, the “three strikes” amendment failed by 19 to 16 after three moderate Democratic Senators - Joan Hartley of Waterbury, Thomas Gaffey of Meriden and Paul Doyle of Wethersfield - all broke with their caucus and joined with the Republicans to support “three strikes.”

The three Democrats who voted against the overall bill were Senators Toni Harp of New Haven, Edwin A. Gomes of Bridgeport, and Eric Coleman of Bloomfield.

Senate Republican leader John McKinneyof Southport said that the “three strikes” proposal was necessary because some judges were not handing down stiff-enough sentences. A legislative report showed that an average of 103 people have been released from prison every year for the past five years after they finished serving their time for three violent felonies. The average sentence for the third violent felony was 7.9 years in prison, McKinney said, citing the legislative report.

“They have not been punished as severely as we believe they should have,” he said.

But Democrats ripped the “three strikes” proposal, saying it was nothing more than a bumper-sticker slogan in an election year.

“This is not a baseball game. This is life,” said Senator Donald DeFronzo, a New Britain Democrat. “It achieves more as a political sound bite and a sports metaphor than it does as a piece of solid legislation. … This amendment is virtually valueless.”

Earlier in the evening, the Republicans had verbally pummeled the original bill on the Senate floor, saying that it would actually weaken the state’s laws for violent crimes. Following that clash, Democrats — who hold the majority in the chamber — suddenly postponed the debate and called for a recess shortly before 11:30 p.m. The chamber reconvened later, and the “three strikes” debate pushed the vote past 2 a.m. Thursday.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, a Stamford Democrat, began Wednesday’s debate by saying violent criminals would be treated much more harshly than under the current law. A “second strike” under existing law could lead to no prison time at all, but the sentence would be doubled under the bill, he said.

“This is an extraordinary change in our public policy,” McDonald said, adding that criminals “will be punished in extraordinary ways.”

But Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican, said the original bill was so badly written that it would not accomplish the legislature’s tough-on-crime goals and, in fact, would backfire.

“I guess I’m missing something,” Kissel said. “It actually is weaker addressing persistent dangerous felony offenders. … This amendment pushes us backward. How can this be tougher on criminals? It’s not.”

Out of 21 violent crimes mentioned in the original bill, the maximum prison sentence would actually be reduced for eight of them, Kissel said. That includes second-degree manslaughter with a firearm, among others.

“I think we can do better than this,” Kissel said. “I don’t view it as a get-tough amendment.”

Sen. Sam Caligiuri, a Waterbury Republican, agreed with Kissel and rejected the statements by Democrats that the state already has a “three strikes” law.

“You will be lying to the people of Connecticut if you tell them” that the bill includes tough, mandatory minimum sentences, he said. “It’s nothing close to what the people of Connecticut” want.

House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, shocked the Legislature today by announcing he will not run for another term in the House of Representatives, effectively ending any trace of moderation at the State Capitol.

Amann has spent the better part of the last year struggling with the overwhelming majority of liberal members who are eager to unleash new taxes and regulation on individuals and businesses.

Amann has been ethically challenged from the start of last year, In 2007,  Republicans questioned his use of his office to solicit private donations from lobbyists to a charity that had hired him to do funraising work. The state Ethics Commission found he had stepped over the line.

Last year, House Republican Leader Larry Cafero, R-Nowalk, mopped the floor with Amann, who made his caucus vote for a billion plus increase in taxes that was promptly vetoed by the governor. In the end, the Democrats followed Cafero’s no-tax proposal while handing the Republicans a clear election issue.

It never ended for the beleagured Speaker who seemed more interested in handing out key chains and introducing notable Milford citizens in the gallery than managing the 107-member caucus. He crude personal style often broke through as he called Gov. M. Jodi Rell, “Snow White,” and hurled other invectives not worthy of an officer of the legislature.

Amann has declared his candidacy for Governor and whether the retirement is to focus on that or avoid the embarrassment of not being elected to a third term as Speaker, no one knows at this time. But it clear Amann has grown weary and resigned to his fate.

But what is clear that Amann’s exit presents a clear and present danger to the economic and social future of this state. Waiting in the wings to succeed Amann is House Majority Leader Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, a hard-line liberal and union activists who will push for government run and finance health care, new mandatory benefits for private employees, a tax on “millionaires” and just about every out-of-this-world spending idea one can think of.

The Barbarians will soon be at the gates and only Republicans are there to stop them unless the business community and enlightened voters take notice and join the fight.

Soren Dayton at RedState has a terrific post up about the ramifications of a Barack Obama candidacy in the general election.  Some of the highlights:

Northeast Philly has a Republican machine that delivers State Representatives (including the last two Speakers of the PA House of Representatives) against Democrats. Local Republican precinct captains have existing relationships with both the local Democratic organization and the local Democratic voters. These are small precincts with 500-600 voters. The local Republican precinct captains know the voters. They know who they can talk to. And they have 6 months to have those discussions

The whole article is terrific - take a look.

Republican National Committeeman John H. Frey and Committeewoman Patricia Longo were unanimously re-elected to four year terms at tonight’s Republican State Central Committee meeting in Stamford, Connecticut.  Delegates to the Republican National Convention were also unanimously approved - we’ll post that list in the coming days.

Courtesy Election Journal