Referendum for Referendums

In Connecticut the legislature has the power to to initiate an amendment to the Constitution without consulting the public but requiring public ratification.It was done in November 1992 to define a budgetary spending cap methodology to limit legislative spending. This has not proven to be adequate to constrain or limit spending and seems to have lost its purpose considering Connecticut's current 2009 budgetary dilemma. The amendment as stands, lacks clarity,definitions, realistic procedures, and allows manipulation to the point of rendering the amendment useless and ineffective.
The fraud continues as in November 2009 the citizens are facing a saga of budgetary crisis when the legislature did not make the hard decisions and rolled them to a future day during the 2009 session and passed a budget with gimmicks and borrowing. Nobody could agree on the "Revenue Forecast" was often cited as an excuse and required by the spending cap constitutional amendment. Knowing full well that this was not a "balanced budget" means the legislature is guilty of intentionally violating the spending cap so ill-defined by them in the constitution. They are immune from prosecution, but will face voter wrath in November 2010.
If they cannot or will not do what is necessary it is essential for the people to speak, take control, and do the right thing. With legislative authority and a favorable popular vote in November 2010 the constitution can be re-amended to provide a much needed set of parameters, definitions, priorities and boundaries to finally cap the budget and insure a more meaningful spending limit. When such a referendum is placed before the voters in 2010 everyone has a chance to fill the definition void and make concrete decisions about what is best for Connecticut.Consider this an "appeal referendum" now for the legislature to allow a voter referendum so the citizens can clean up this mess and move the state towards fiscal responsibility.This action should be a test for candidates seeking office who should not get a vote if they do not support voter referendums.
Under the current constitution adopted in 1965 and amended 30 times since, it is a 2 step process to make amendments:
1. Both houses of the legislature must first pass a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment by a 3/4 majority in each chamber
2.The resolution is submitted to the popular vote for ratification in the next election
This "appeal referendum" is a request by the voters to have the legislature do the right thing and fix their definitions and processes to avoid these budget impasses in the future.
A more bold approach would have the legislature hear the voice of the people and propose an additional amendment. A voter referendum or "voter initiative" as an additional capacity to voters when a similar crisis occurs would provide the direct voter involvment often used in other states to resolve the impass on what the public really wants. Where a spending cap definition is the target today, future crisis could also involve direct voter reconciliation on issues not so complex or when a contentious indecision occurs.One party majority power is not the right answer all the time. This gives the voter power to resolve conflicts and have a true democratic voice and reflection of all values not bounded by parties or brokering.
The legislature should act NOW to propose this amendment so we may vote on it in November 2010. If they don't, they do not deserve our support with a revolution to follow..

Voice of Anonymity.....?

We should all know that in CT most legislation proposed is done through the work of special interest groups who approach individual legislators or committees. The process is well known, documented, and controlled (somewhat), but is widely recognized for its values (to some):

1) You only need to have a small advocacy group, lobbyist, or professional association to wield great influence.

2) This process educates legislators on complex topics when their own knowledge base is limited or is focused on their passion/ideology to help someone.

3) It allows full time paid lobbyists to orchestrate the agenda and propose the legislation.

The shortcomings of this environment also are well known:

1) The public hearing testimony is dominated by state agencies and advocacy groups whose job it is to track these bills and comment as necessary.

2) The public must sit and wait until called. This time can be prolonged and requires the public to basically take time off from work. Evening hours are rare.

3) Appealing via a letter or phone call to your locally elected representative may not be effective if they are not a member of the committee seeking public testimony.

The consequences to all of this may be succinct but includes:

1) Public voice and input are not really visible or viable.

2) Legislators vote on the basis of knowledge they hear from those "expert" special interests.

3) Legislators are loyal to their party and not necessarily to local interests other than on a token basis.

4) The public voice is missing or lost and is never really considered.

Connecticut has a closed system of government and rarely seeks the direct opinion of the population via a referendum. The silent majority is silenced by this lack of sensitivity and is deprived of voter initiative and activism tools to be heard and to make changes that reflect CT society at large. With the demise of newspapers, there is no forum for diversity, debate, or consideration of alternate views, to say nothing of investigative reporting to uncover mischief. (Of course the obvious exception is responsible blogs such as this one.)

Without the option to propose by means of a defined and regulated voter initiative process (as is done in most states) the CT public will NEVER truely have a voice and will remain disenfranchised from direct participation.

I propose that a statewide district represented by all voters is as worthy as districts represented by locally elected individuals. Direct democracy is practiced in many towns through annual and other scheduled meetings when necessary giving CT voters locally practical familiarity with this process.

How/why can't this be made possible to CT citizens and thereby engage them in more fruitful discussion with all opinions and knowledge considered for worthy ideas? Incumbents and special interests would have to cope with a statewide approach and its costly, time-consuming educational implications.

Only then special interests would have to make their case to the statewide audience instead of their own business as usual with campaign donations and other goodies to the legislators they need to do their work.

This status quo also is convenient to the elected representatives who can financially benefit at election time. It is far more cost effective for a special interest group to invest in the legislative "membership" than to take their case/initiative to the population at large. With 36 Senate members and 151 House members, it does not cost a lot to make donations to campaigns or favorite charities to get influence.

With 113 Democrats and only 36 Republicans (and 2 vacancies), you can save even more by donations to the dominant party only!

A statewide education/advertising campaign is far more costly and unpredictable.

CT 2009 budget

You have a squeeky clean governor, Jodi Rell, trying her best to create a responsible budget and adhere to the shortfall forecasts. Still, nothing happens.It makes you wonder, if she is the "good", where must the evil lie? The answer? The Legislature, with inert Republicans!

How to extract a budget from them as gradiodse as it is likely to be, (see Obamamania) , also is troublesome. Maybe the voters with a voter referendum could establish an adult version and pass it. How hard could that be if we practice "core" values?