There is no real liberal candidate in the race. The Democratic Party’s progressive wing doesn’t have a candidate yet. Lamont, if he did jump in, would instantly have a core group of dedicated, enthusiastic supporters to promote his candidacy. None of the other announced candidates have this.

I added the emphasis there.

I think that Genghis is spot on — the field is not particularly exciting to progressive liberals who want to challenge Governor Rell. Considering the path that she’s taking the state down (by giving the finger to education, for one example), I think that the best challenger to Rell would be someone who stands in stark contrast to her. Ned Lamont may be that person, and if nothing else he proved in 2006 that himself willing to step up to a challenge, unlike some folks we know…

Check out the rest of Genghis’ post over at CTLP.

He is months away from a final decision, but after previously disavowing any interest in the job, Mr. Lamont said that a gubernatorial campaign grows more intriguing as the economy worsens and the deficit deepens, all harbingers of a protracted budget fight in Hartford.

[...]

Mr. Lamont said Mrs. Rell and the Democratic-controlled legislature are more intent on gamesmanship than confronting what even some Republican legislators privately concede: in addition to the budget cuts proposed by the governor, tax increases and labor concessions must be part of the mix.

“I think she punted,” Mr. Lamont said of the governor’s two-year budget proposal, which the legislature’s nonpartisan budget office says may be out of balance by more than $2 billion. “Frankly, the legislature hasn’t stood up and come forward with anything very cogent. To me, both the legislature and the governor are playing a game of cat and mouse.”

Pazniokas continues, writing about how Lamont might find himself in a four-way contest for the Democratic nomination against Former CT House Speaker Jim “The Crusher” Amann, Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, and Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz. That’s a crowded field, but I want to see Ned jump in — and I think there is room for him — because with three solid candidates (plus Amann) piling on Rell, I don’t see how we could lose.

“We’re not bankrupt, but we’ve been flat as a pancake for a generation,” he said of the state economy.

Unlike Rell, who has flat-funded education, Obama has proposed increased spending for priorities such as education and health care, he said.

“We haven’t added any new jobs and many young people are leaving,” Lamont said of Connecticut.

He called her budget — $38.3 billion over two years with cuts meant to correct predicted billion-dollar deficits — a smattering of quick fixes with little in the way of important changes.

[...]

Rell recommended that people turn out lights when leaving their offices and not travel out of state as a way of paying down the deficit. Lamont hit at her intention to borrow against the state’s rainy-day fund.

“Her plan is extraordinarily shortsighted, and you young people should be outraged because they’ve borrowed against your future,” he said to the students.

I am delighted to see Ned daring to criticize Governor Rell and her short-sighted budget. Actually, it’s not really all that daring, it only seems so because Democratic leadership in the state isn’t doing it. Then again, we’re talking about the same folks who were too scared to even censure Joe Lieberman after he stabbed them in the back, repeatedly.

In any case, Ned’s criticisms of Rell and the budget are spot on.

Education is the safest investment in town. It is critically important not to underfund or flat-fund our state’s institutions of higher education, because the Community College System and the State University System will play a vital role in helping Connecticut residents–and by extension, Connecticut itself–bounce back in the years to come.

It is downright shameful that Governor Rell is demanding these kinds of short-sighted cuts before considering any avenues for increasing revenue. By doing so, she is putting her bid for re-election before both the short and long-term welfare of the state. For an accidental governor, this lack of leadership and abundance of poor judgment could be excused but for the fact that she sought and won re-election.

In her 2006 campaign, she “stayed away from any flashy campaign promises,” according to this NY Times bio. Who would have thought that promising nothing meant we might actually end up with it?

January 20 – Rell Administration estimates 2010-2011 budget shortfall at $8 Billion
February 2 – The Governor gets time from the networks to pre-introduce her budget, and sets the 2010-2011 budget shortfall at $8 Billion
February 4 – Rell, to great fanfare, announces her 2010-2011 budget, which closes a $6 Billion shortfall. Declares victory.

Apparently, being Governor is easy. All you have to do is redefine the problem so it’s fixed by whatever solution you come up with. No wonder she doesn’t spend much time working.

Check out the rest of Gabe’s post for an idea about what happened to the other $2 billion, and what the General Assembly ought to do about it.

Here’s a tip for Governor Rell: If you need a calculator to figure out that there is a difference between an $8 billion shortfall and a $6 billion shortfall, you can use this free web-based one.

Although public colleges will have to tighten up their budgets, the governor’s proposal will keep its commitment to student financial aid.

“I have not and will not cut financial aid,” Rell said.

Economics professor at Gateway Community College, Lorraine Li, thinks keeping financial aid in the budget is great, but it’s not enough.

“With the cuts to higher education, there will be a raise in tuition to keep the same level of services,” Li said Wednesday. “Enrollment is up 5 percent, people are turning more to public education than private education.”

Li believes by decreasing funding a downward spiral will result.

Keeping a commitment to financial aid does not balance out an increase in tuition. It’s equivalent to maintaining the 10% senior discount in spite of price hikes, because the cost still goes up. What Connecticut needs is to make higher education more affordable, not less.

Last year, State Rep. Tim O’Brien floated a proposal to address brain drain in Connecticut. As I wrote last year, it would work by…

creating an incentive for Connecticut college students to stick around after they graduate. His plan at present would allow students to defer the entire cost of college until after graduation, and pay back only a portion of the tuition based on income. Graduates who don’t plan to stick around CT for at least 10 years would have to pay back the full amount.

The plan isn’t about giving everybody free college (although there’s nothing wrong with that, in theory), but rather deferring the costs for Connecticut residents who go back to school and commit to staying in the state after graduation. By giving the most favorable repayment terms to graduates who stay here, and making it unattractive for beneficiaries of this deferment to leave Connecticut after graduation (two things that cannot be accomplished with student loans), the population of degree holders increases. That’s one way to make the state more attractive to businesses looking to expand in the future.

It’s also a good way to boost earnings potential for a great many Connecticut residents. Their higher incomes would mean more revenue for the state. Not to mention that the increased earnings potential and employability afforded by a college degree will enable most of the beneficiaries of the program to pay for their education after they’ve received it.

Don’t cut education funding. Re-think it. Make higher education accessible and affordable for everyone in Connecticut, and we’ll be better off in the long run.