These are horribly deep cuts. As one comment following the article states: "He chooses cuts to mental health and social services before asking the wealthy to pay some more. Priorities."

The governor has proposed cutting $34.5 million from the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services – a number nearly three times greater than what his commissioner indicated could be cut while preserving the safety net clients rely on. He also proposed nearly $16 million in cuts to grants for mental health and substance abuse treatment.

Clinton praised him for his leadership on winning passage of gun-control legislation after Newtown that banned some weapons and required universal background checks for the purchase of firearms and ammunition

There is commanding, at gun point and "jail-point"--you pay, or your property is confiscated and you're sent to jail. If you don't vacate your property state marshals arrive with firearms to make sure you vacate or the marshal's garnish your accounts.

There is tax avoidance, which may be legal but isn't expedient for some groups and has been dubbed a kind of moral crime and subject to extensive shaming.

There is lobbying, which are all dubbed "corruption" and the top 5% or 10% shouldn't be allowed that constitutional right. They aren't really part of "the people," meaning, I guess, they're not really people.

There are attempts at getting out the vote and persuading voters to limit tax increases, which is a kind of public speech that the top 5% or 10% shouldn't be allowed to engage in according to many, it would seem. Again, they're not really people.

I don't see "ask" as a viable option. I mean, I guess the governor could put out a call asking people (or at least the wealthy, if not actual people) to donate to the cause. I suspect that's not what the writer means. So I take "ask" to be a weasel word to mask either government authority or rhetorical claims that rights should be denied. I think words that are manipulative should be unmasked. Honesty and transparency matter, esp. from politicians whose supporters value honesty and transparency.

Ha. And I thought he was such an advocate for the people?

Well, there you go. Showing the stark difference between the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and the People's wing of the Democratic party.

So Malloy's campaigning for Hillary now. Guess that sort of backfired on him yesterday bigtime. Shame on Gov Malloy for cutting mental health funds, whatever the reason.

The Dem Corporatists (Third Way/New Democrat/DLC/Progressive Institute/Grand Bargain--whatever name they try to hide behind) are really coming forward.

The FDR/People's branch of the Democratic Party need to take note, learn who stands on which side of the political divide and keep on keeping on.

GOTV! Go Bernie Sanders!

at least a little bit about Malloy before spewing that 3rd way bullshit.

... the cutting of $43 million from mental health? And appearing with Hillary Clinton, the First Lady of the Third Way?

over the last 2 years at least and nearly a 1 billion dollar deficit to clean up by the end of the year.

There are going to be big cuts, now we see what the legislature can do. The Governors budget isn't "the budget" it's just a step in the process and it's usually the worst case scenario.

How can you do that for Malloy? Make excuses for him? You and I know that we could go up there and find $43 million somewhere else in the budget instead of cutting it from Mental Health. I bet it wouldn't take us one day to find $43 million to cut. It would stick out like a sore thumb to both of us.

I suppose we could take the 43 mil from schools, from much needed infrastructure projects or by firing even more State workers (we may lose about 2000 of them already). They have to find a way to balance a >900 Million dollar deficit by the end of 2016. Tax increases aren't going to cut it, they tried that last time and it barely made a dent. The economy was hit hard by the recession and the jobs that are returning aren't producing anywhere near enough revenue to cover the losses.

The State has to balance the cuts and no matter what it's going to hurt a lot. The overestimation of revenue and underestimation of expenses over the last several years and Governments has come to a head.

The money has to come from somewhere and no matter where you find it someone is going to get hurt.

Dannel Malloy is one of the most liberal Governors in the country supported by one of the most liberal legislatures in the country. There is no easy way out of this.

They are unconstrained in their advocacy. They push for one part of the system or one point to carry the day. The harder they push, the better their advocacy, even though the harder they push the more unbalanced they're asking the system to be. They simply don't make the decisions, and if their advocacy is followed they are not responsible for anything bad that might happen.

Fiduciaries have responsibility. They make decisions, and if their decisions are implemented they are most certainly responsible for anything bad that might happen. That means their decisions are tightly constrained as they have to make sure that all the priorities are minimally funded.

I was a symbolically voting board member once upon a time. I could pout, I could argue for the most extreme measures to be taken. If I argued extremes at times it was because I thought that over-stating the case might push the status quo in the direction that was good for those I was advocating for. I was pure advocate. I was in no way responsible for any decision that resulted from my advocacy. If my advocacy had horrible results, I could deny responsibility because I just sat back and watched the decision get made by those who should have been more careful.

Then the committee did an underhanded and dastardly thing, one that the organization that designated me as a board member and voter (symbolic or otherwise) had pushed for for years. I was given an actual vote. If we voted to cut something and was on the winning side, actual people were helped and hurt by my vote. If we moved resources from one group to another, I may have been helping one group but I was actively hurting another group. If I voted to suspend a program, real, live human beings would have their lives affected. It took about a day for the implications to finally soak through my thick skull, and when advocates for this or that point of view made their cases I knew that they were arguing for what helped themselves, damn everybody else and their lives. The extremism of the views was obvious--they considered only their own and simply didn't think about others at the present or implications for others for the future. It made life much easier for me that I was in no way accountable for my vote to my "constituents"--my appointing organization couldn't unappoint me. Note that the MD governor is both fiduciary and politician. He's responsible not only for the harm he does, but for those who perceive the wrong done to themselves by a decision as more important than the good done to others.

It didn't help that that year a lot of tie votes, 8-8, were looming. It was clear that there'd be a dozen votes or so in the last month that would affect thousands of people in the organization, and the committee was pretty evenly divided. Part of the reason that the chair pushed to give my organization an actual vote was because my vote would be a 17th. No ties possible without an abdication of responsibility.