Democratic Losses in CT weren't about Gun Law

Following the midterm election, the Speaker of the CT General Assembly tried to pin the blame for Democratic losses on voting for CT's 2013 gun law. It was his way of shifting the reason from other issues on which Democrats were perceived to be weak. I was thrilled to see this published in the Hartford Courant, the country's oldest newspaper.

In the wake of last week’s Democratic losses in the CT General Assembly, House Speaker Brendan Sharkey said Democrats lost because they voted yes on SB1160, the 2013 gun safety reform bill[1]. Speaker Sharkey’s assessment of the political risk of supporting common-sense gun laws is patently false.

Of the 106 Senate and House candidates who voted yes on SB1160, more than 90 percent were re-elected[2]. Gun regulation wasn’t a key issue in several of the contests where incumbent Democrats lost, so it’s disingenuous of Mr. Sharkey to blame their losses on support of gun violence prevention.

In the gubernatorial race, Gov. Malloy made unwavering support for the landmark legislation a centerpiece of his campaign. Grassroots gun safety advocates across the state were outspoken in their support for the governor. Malloy’s opponent Tom Foley did just the opposite, embracing extremist gun owners and taking an openly hostile position on gun safety reform. Foley went so far as to say he would not enforce aspects of the law[3] and would repeal it if given the opportunity. 

Foley’s pro-gun strategy failed. He received nearly 40,000 fewer votes than in his race against Malloy in 2010.  Malloy increased his margin of victory over Foley fourfold, with gains coming from around the state, not just in urban areas[4]. Compared to the 2010 campaign, the significant new policy debate was the gun law.  On that issue the winning strategy was Malloy’s. As U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal remarked,  “there are rewards for common sense and sensible solutions, particularly in the area of stopping gun violence.”[5]

On the Democratic side, Speaker Sharkey is a lone voice in blaming Democratic losses on support of gun safety reform. In contrast, GOP leaders have not been shy about calling the state GOP party to task for running a pro-gun candidate in a state still recovering from the Sandy Hook school shooting. But for its poor choice, noted former U.S. Representative Chris Shays, Malloy’s advantage on the gun issue could have been neutralized.[6]

Speaker Sharkey’s thesis is further refuted by the outcome on the other side of the aisle. Every Republican House member who voted yes on SB1160 was re-elected. The only incumbent Republican to lose was Mike Molgano, who voted against the 2013 gun bill. His opponent, Caroline Simmons, a 28 year-old newcomer to elective office, made gun violence prevention a prominent message in her campaign.

In Congressional races, first term U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty, a vocal advocate for stronger gun regulation, overcame a challenge from Mark Greenberg, an NRA “A” rated candidate who is more concerned with limits on Second Amendment rights than protecting us from gun violence. In his 2010 Congressional campaign, Greenberg wrote “I will ensure that no bills violate our Constitutional Rights as lawful citizens to own and possess firearms.”[7]

The NRA and its local ally, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, whose endorsement Tom Foley eagerly accepted[8], lost decisively in Connecticut.

But it wasn’t only in Connecticut that voters expressed their support for reasonable regulation of firearms and the candidates that champion gun safety reform. It happened around the nation. Despite spending nearly $5 million in Colorado advancing its “guns everywhere” agenda[9], the NRA was not able to unseat Gov. Hickenlooper, another sponsor of strong state-level gun law reforms.

In Washington State, a solid 60% of voters approved a universal background check referendum despite a counterproposal designed by the gun lobby to confuse the issue. In Cook County, Illinois, an overwhelming 86% of voters approved a tough sense-of-the-electorate measure calling for universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines[10]—key elements of the law that Gov. Malloy signed last year.

Despite Speaker Sharkey misreading election results, we cannot overlook his instrumental support in passing the tough measures following Sandy Hook, or his recognition that lawmakers showed integrity by voting yes on SB1160. I look forward to the Speaker’s support when Gov. Malloy follows through on his proposal to close the loophole that allows domestic abusers with temporary restraining orders to keep and buy guns.[11]

There is still legislative work to be done to reduce gun violence. If last week’s election showed anything, it’s that being on the right side of protecting communities from gun violence is also good politics.

---

[1]   CT House GOP - Most Members Since 1994, Hartford Courant, 11/5/14

[2]   99 of the 106 House and Senate incumbent candidates who voted yes on SB1160 were re-elected. Analysis by CT Against Gun Violence.

[3]   CT gubernatorial debate, 8/27/14

[4]   6 Reasons Malloy Did Better in 2014, Hartford Courant, 11/6/14

[5]   Dannel Malloy, in Repeat, Wins a Close Election for Connecticut Governor, New York Times, 11/5/14

[6]   GOP could have avoided gun fight by picking McKinney over Foley, CT Post, 11/6/14

[7]     Mark Greenberg campaign website

[8]     Connecticut gun rights group backs Foley, Washington Times, 8/29/14

[9]     7 Big Gun Fights to Watch on Election Day, Mother Jones, 10/30/14

[10]   It Was a Great Night for Gun Reform, The Nation, 11/5/14

[11]   Dan Malloy, Tom Foley: Close Gun Loophole, Hartford Courant, 9/18/14

Debicella: There's So Much You Don't Know About Obamacare

Dan Debicella is the challenger to Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT 4th District) in this November's congressional race. Although Debicella lost to Himes in 2012, he is well funded and Hime's re-election should not be taken for granted. This op-ed, which appeared in Greenwich Time, was written in collaboration with Sean Goldrick, a fellow member of the Greenwich Democratic Town Committee. It was written in response to an op-ed written by Debicella.

“It’s not what he doesn’t know that bothers me, it’s what he knows for sure that just ain’t so.” Although the provenance of this quote about politicians is debated, it undeniably fits Dan Debicella, the Republican challenger to Rep. Jim Himes.

In his recent op-ed, “Fixing our health care mess,” Debicella claims the Affordable Care Act “neglected to address the out-of-control costs squeezing middle class families.”  Apparently Debicella is unaware that over the five years since ACA implementation began, health care costs have risen at the slowest rate in half a century.  He also neglects to report that ACA stopped insurance companies from gouging people in the individual market, requiring insurers to put at least 80 percent of premium income towards medical care. Obamacare resulted in millions of dollars of overcharges being rebated to middle class consumers over the past two years.  

Debicella claims the Affordable Care Act fails to cover “most of the uninsured” due to the ACA’s “convoluted exchange system.”  In fact, despite the initial problems of the federal exchange website, more than 8 million middle class Americans enrolled in marketplace plans, and another 6 million received coverage through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). After decades of consumers being locked out of the private insurance market, the uninsured rate hit an all-time high just before the healthcare exchanges opened late last year. Since then the rate has fallen more than 20 percent, “a sign that the Affordable Care Act…appears to be accomplishing its goal of increasing the percentage of Americans with health insurance coverage.” reported Gallup in April.

While criticizing Obamacare for failing to cover the uninsured, Debicella neglected to reveal that 25 states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures refused to extend Medicaid coverage, a key component of Obamacare, leaving millions of vulnerable Americans without access to health care. A study by Harvard University published in Health Affairs estimates that up to 17,000 Americans will die each year in the 25 “refusal states” due to lack of access to health care. 

Thanks to Gov. Malloy’s leadership, CT’s state exchange worked beautifully, extending insurance to nearly two and a half times more residents than was originally estimated. Of the 79,000 residents who signed up for private sector health insurance policies through Access Health CT, nearly four in five received subsidies to help pay premiums.  That isn’t “squeezing middle class families,” it’s helping them.  Over 150,000 low-income Connecticut residents who couldn't afford health insurance before are now benefitting from the Medicaid extension.  

Debicella’s alternative to the ACA is a “market-based system.” He is apparently oblivious to the fact that we’ve had (and still have) a largely market-based system that drives the highest costs in the world, while leaving millions uninsured and delivering sub-par performance when compared to the government-managed systems that Republicans love to denounce as “socialist” failures.  

As a fix for high costs, Debicella proposes that insurance policies be sold across state lines.  What he is really proposing is that junk insurance that used to be marketed in lightly regulated states be sold to unsuspecting consumers elsewhere.  In another example of how Obamacare is helping the middle class, it put a stop to the peddling of junk insurance, requiring a basic level of services be offered in every state.  That has lowered cost through standardization, while enhancing the quality and coverage of insurance policies.

Debicella also proposes tort reform as a means of reducing health care costs. Malpractice costs are a favorite Republican bogeyman even though they account for a small fraction of total healthcare costs. Commenting on proposals to restrict malpractice suits as a way to attack healthcare costs, Forbes (“the capitalist tool”) commented “Given the small percentage of the health care dollar spent on medical malpractice issues, that would hardly appear to be the case.”

There’s just so much that Mr. Debicella knows for sure that just ain’t so.