Almost overlooked in the latest Quinnipiac University Connecticut Poll is that most people in the state do not support President Obama’s handling of the health care issue. According to the poll, 53% in Connecticut disapprove and 42% approve of the president’s actions on health care.

Asked specifically about the current (and expansive and expensive) health care legislation in Congress, 48% of those polled in Connecticut said they mostly disapprove of it, versus only 42% that mostly approve.

Surprising numbers for a solidly “blue state.”

The Norwich Bulletin has a good editorial on the reality of Connecticut’s fiscal situation and the need for real, substantitive solutions. Business confidence (read: present and future jobs) is waning,  and one of the biggest factors chipping away at that confidence is, as the editorial says, “the uncertainty of what the state might do — or not do” in the budget crisis. Consistency and predictabiliy go a long way to help businesses plan, grow and envision their futures in Connecticut. Grasping at state budgetary straws on a yearly basis doesn’t allow businesses, or our economy, to fully develop.  Responsible state budgeting and strategic tax policy will build the path to economic recovery and job growth.

Most observers believe that if the supporters of the health care bills pending before Congress can’t get the votes to pass a bill in the next couple of weeks, the matter could go away. So it looks like we may finally be reaching the end of the road. Unfortunately both the Senate and House bills have major flaws. After the many months spent debating the issue it would be nice if we had a solid, comprehensive bill worthy of support, but that’s not the case.

For a good summary of where things stand right now, check out this Politico article.

Here’s the Labor Committee vote on the paid sick leave bill. The measure only passed by a 6-4 margin, which is pretty close for the Labor Committee. Thanks to Republicans Aman, Noujaim, Guglielmo and Democrat Hewitt for their votes today.

The legislature’s Labor and Public Employeess Committee has a meeting scheduled for 2 p.m. this afternoon, at which time the committee’s leaders plan to approve two bills that, while well-intentioned, do more to hurt job retention and creation in Connecticut than help it.

One bill is SB 63, which mandates that employers of 50 or more employees provide a paid sick day benefit. Connecticut would be the first state in the nation to impose such a mandate, but that hasn’t slowed supporters of the bill, many of whom have said that jobs is the top issue this session. Unfortunately, adding a new mandate onto employers is the wrong way to go if you’re serious about job creation and retention.

The same is true of SB 242 which attempts to keep jobs in the state by tying the hands of employers. The rationale behind a bill like this is that if we penalize employers enough, maybe they will keep more jobs in Connecticut. The reality is, however, that the more difficult we make it to operate a business in this state, the fewer jobs we will have here. One would think that it is evident already, given the fact that we have a challenging business climate and have struggled to create new jobs over the years.

We’ll see later today by the votes on these bills who gets it and who doesn’t. I’ll link to the vote tallies once they’re available.

Republican Laura Hoydick easily defeated Democrat Janice Andersen in the special election held yesterday to fill the House seat vacated by former Republican representative John Harkins. Harkins resigned from the 120th District seat in January after having been elected mayor of Stratford last November.

The Connecticut Post has more on the new state representative.

Here’s a link to the deficit mitigation plan released by Gov. Rell to deal with this year’s projected deficit of a little over $500 million. Also, a summary of the plan from Ted Mann at the New London Day.

There has been some criticism in the media and elsewhere of Gov. Rell’s proposal to create a BRAC-like commission to propose cuts, consolidations and a restructuring of state government. BRAC refers to the U.S. Military’s Base Realignment and Closure Commission, which was created to set up a process to make the approval of base closures more expeditious.

The criticisms are that commission reports don’t go anywhere once they reach the legislature, and that we shouldn’t need another commission to identify areas where spending should be cut. These and other complaints about the Governor’s proposal miss the central point however. The reason the Governor has proposed a commission structured like the BRAC Commission is to help break the logjam at the Capitol and set up a process where something may actually get done.

The key is in the process. Under the Governor’s proposal, the 24-member commission must issue its recommendations by August 30, 2010. Those recommendations would then go to a 4-person board, representing all three branches of government and both political parties. The commission’s recommendations would move ahead unless 3 or more board members voted to reject or amend a recommendation. Finally, the recommendations would go to the legislature for an up-or-down vote on the entire package.

Although it may appear somewhat cumbersome at first, the process would be much preferable to the current state of affairs where little is actually done to change state government. By taking the politics out of the equation, at least somewhat, and calling for an up-or-down vote, the new process could help break the legislative logjam. It has been fairly effective for the U.S Military, and the legislature should give the proposal a fair hearing. Even with legislative modifications, it can still be a whole lot better than what we have now.

A very interesting, first-in-the-nation report on interstate wealth migration was released earlier this month. The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and the Community Foundation of New Jersey commissioned the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College to study the effects of wealth migration on charitable giving in the Garden State. The report shows that more than $70 billion in wealth left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008, mostly to Florida, Pennsylvania and New York.

New Jersey actually saw an influx of $98 billion in wealth in the five years prior to 2004. According to some local experts and economists, the main reason for the change from before 2004 to after 2004 was a reaction to a series of changes in the state’s tax structure, including increases in the income, sales, property and “millionaire” taxes.

The out-migration of wealth has serious implications for any state, and it’s as issue we have been concerned about here in Connecticut (some comparisons to Connecticut are made in the report). Policy choices that drive wealth creators out of state hurt not only businesses, but also charitable organizations and other not-for-profits, state revenues and job creation. State legislators must be extremely careful in crafting policies, particularly tax policies, so more wealth isn’t driven out of our state.

CBIA and the Connecticut Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives held a very successful Connecticut Business Day yesterday. I’ll let a CBIA member and attendee, Scott Livingston of Horst Engineering in East Hartford, describe the event.