To be an effective political leader it is not enough to have good ideas, you also have to know how to promote those ideas, build support, and ultimately find the votes to turn them into policy.

State Treasurer Denise L. Nappier has a good idea about how to better handle state bonding, but she has proved ineffective in gaining support for her proposal among her fellow Democrats who control the Senate and House of Representatives. The reaction to Nappier within the administration of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, also a Democrat, has ranged between dismissive and annoyed.

My conclusion is that Nappier is not an effective political leader.

What Nappier objects to is the handling of “bond premiums.” Given the persistent low interest rates, investors see an advantage to offering states premiums on general obligation bonds. The state receives an upfront cash payment in return for paying a higher interest rate over the life of the loan. The investor gains federal tax advantages packaging the bonds in this manner.

The point of contention concerns what the state does with that upfront cash. Currently, the state uses it to pay that higher interest. The state then counts as savings the money set aside in the budget to pay interest charges on bonds, but which is left unspent because of the premium bond money.

The governor’s budget assumes these “savings” due to bond-premium bonding will amount to $325 million over the next two years, money it wants to use to cover operating costs.

The problem, says Nappier, is that the estimate is inflated and the practice ends up costing taxpayers more money.

The treasurer has sought legislation that would require the state to take that upfront premium bonding cash and pay the principal.

In testimony to the legislature, she pointed to a recent $300 million bond sale. By using the premium payment on interest, as is now the practice, the state will end up paying $405.1million over the 20-year life of the bonds. Under Nappier’s proposed law change, requiring using the premium to pay the principal, the state cost would be $393.5 million, an $11.6 million savings.

A policy that saves $11.6 million is the better approach and should become law. Nappier even tried to sweeten the deal by proposing the mandate not begin until fiscal-year 2017, meaning the legislature could still use the somewhat bogus premium savings they are counting on to balance the budgets over the next two years. Of course, the delay would create the possibility of the legislature doing what it often does — push back the requirement yet again two years from now if it proves fiscally inconvenient.

But even this delayed version failed to get to a vote in the Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee. It suggests that Nappier has little political pull within the party.

And if her meeting with The Day Editorial Board last Monday is any indication, she is also a lousy salesperson. Rather than simplify the matter, Nappier made it more convoluted, frequently interrupting her own train of thought as she jumped discordantly from one point to another. Fortunately, she left behind a large binder of homework to help us decipher the intricacies of the issue.

Meanwhile, Nappier contends that in estimating $325 million, the administration inflated the savings it will accrue due to using premiums to pay interest. Nappier’s office calculates the number at $147 million, meaning the governor and legislature would have to find $178 million elsewhere. My expectation is that they will turn a deaf ear to Nappier.

That’s unfortunate, but after sitting through an hour-long meeting with the treasurer, it’s understandable.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.

Twitter: #Paul_Choiniere