CT News Junkie | Ritter Nominated To Head Aging Department

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network

Categories

Our Partners

Ritter Nominated To Head Aging Department

by | Jan 14, 2015 3:45pm
() Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Jobs, Labor, State Capitol, Waterford

Christine Stuart photo

Betsy Ritter of Waterford is nominated to head Aging Department by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy

Former state Rep. Elizabeth Ritter of Waterford was nominated Wednesday by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to serve as commissioner of the Aging Department.

The agency was re-established by Malloy in 2013 and has a budget of about $9.5 million. Her nomination will need to be approved by one chamber of the General Assembly.

Ritter, who ran and lost a state Senate race in 2014, will be paid $125,000 a year in her new position.

Malloy said the state has a growing senior population, which is one of the reasons he decided to re-establish the Aging Department as a standalone agency.

“The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that nearly 26 percent of Connecticut’s population will be 60 and older by the year 2030, up from approximately 20 percent in 2014,” according to an Aging Department report.

“We want our seniors to live with dignity, security, and independence,” Malloy said.

With an increasingly older population, Ritter said it’s increasingly important for us to advocate for our seniors and their caregivers.

“This agency as you all know is a young agency here in Connecticut and many, many thanks go to our first commissioner [former] Sen. Edith Prague,” Ritter said. “Edith’s work in putting the agency together and the passion she always has and still brings to these issues are remarkable.”

Prague retired from the position in the summer.

Ritter, who served for five terms and spent four years as co-chair of the Public Health Committee, was a lead proponent of the aid-in-dying legislation, which never made it to the floor of either chamber.

Members of Second Thoughts Connecticut showed up at the press conference Wednesday to voice their concern about Ritter being nominated to head an agency, which cares for the elderly.

Stephen Mendelsohn of Second Thoughts Connecticut said there hasn’t been any legislation introduced this year, but he anticipates it’s an issue the legislature will address again this year.

Malloy has not made many definitive statements about the issue, which opponents call “assisted suicide.”

Malloy said both his parents died after long illnesses and each played a significant decision-making role in what treatments they would receive.

“I’m in favor of legislation that allows people to play that active role,” Malloy said Wednesday. “I’ve always made that very clear and I’ll make judgments about legislation that’s drafted and passed rather than do it as a precursor.”

He continued, “I think people know I do have some worries on the other side of it, so finding the right balance that allows people to play and active role in decision making in their care and how long it goes on is important to me.”

But Malloy made clear that Wednesday’s nomination of Ritter to head the Aging Department was about services for the living.

“I understand that’s an issue that people talk about, but it’s not an issue about what this department does,” Malloy said.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

Comments

(4) Archived Comments

posted by: Bluecoat | January 14, 2015  4:19pm

January Session, 2013
Propose Bill No. 5595
Introduced By: Rep. Ritter, E., 38th District

An Act Concerning a Hoarders’ Tax.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative in General Assembly convened:
That general statutes be amended to institute a small tax on companies’ liquid assets, with the proceeds applied to programs to create jobs.
Statement of Purpose:
To institute a “hoarders’ tax” to fund job creation programs.

posted by: Bluecoat | January 14, 2015  4:22pm

The mentality behind someone that would think a “Hoarder Tax” in order to create jobs, and put on paper and propose this to the General Assembly is mind blowing.

posted by: Bluecoat | January 14, 2015  4:31pm

Now is the time for a CT “Revolving Door Surtax”
As proposed by Univ. of Tennessee Law Professor in USA Today, Jan. 29, 2013 article:
“In short, I propose putting a 50% surtax—or maybe it should be 75%, I’m open to discussion—on the post-government earnings of government officials. So if you work at a cabinet level job and make $196,700 a year, and you leave for a job that pays a million a year, you’ll pay 50% of the difference—just over $400,000—to the Treasury right off the top. So as not to be greedy, we’ll limit it to your first five years of post-government earnings; after that, you’ll just pay whatever standard income tax applies.

This seems fair. After all, when it comes to your value as an ex-government official, it really is a case of “you didn’t build that.” Your value to a future employer comes from having held a taxpayer-funded position and from having wielded taxpayer-conferred power. Why shouldn’t the taxpayers get a cut?” - Glenn Harlan Reynolds 1/29/2013 - USA Today

posted by: cnj-david | January 15, 2015  8:51pm

Ah yes, patronage, the fine art of having the taxpayers finance your paying off political debt.