Skip to main content

Connecticut’s Triumvirate: Malloy, Sharkey And Looney


The General Assembly, as we all know, is ultimately responsible for budgets: The executive branch proposes, the legislative branch disposes, as the saying has it.

 A few weeks ago, Governor Dannel Malloy, valiantly attempting to make good his often repeated campaign pledge that deficits during his second term would not be discharged through tax increases, sent to Connecticut’s General Assembly a budget plan he said was in balance. It was not in balance, and the draconian spending cuts Mr. Malloy offered were roundly rejected by leaders in his own party. The tax writing committee now has disposed of the Malloy budget.


With the approval of leading Democrats in the legislature, Speaker of the House Brendan Sharkey and President Pro Tempore of the Senate Martin Looney, the budget writing committee has produced a revised budget that raises taxes by $1.8 billion, a very large chunk of change, but still short of Mr. Malloy’s massive, broad-based tax increase during his first term, the largest tax hit in Connecticut history. The committee-revised budget plunges Mr. Malloy’s attempt to control taxation into the netherworld.

The committee that pumped up taxes also removed from Connecticut’s constitutionally prescribed spending cap pension obligations for state workers, a sizable chunk of change. The removal raises the roof on spending and creates a false surplus. The artful move by dominant Democrats in the General Assembly effectively repeals the spending cap and may be repeated whenever Big Spenders in the state legislature, facing a deficit, do not wish to resolve it through spending cuts.

Democrats who have increased taxes and who will increase spending have said that the spending cap distorts right action in the legislature. The cap, some of them have said, does not limit spending; it merely forces legislators to increase revenues through dubious means: See above for examples. Of course, it is not the budget cap that forces legislators to adopt by crook means they cannot employ by hook. No, the cap is discounted because for thirty years and more Democratic legislators have been unable to embrace the notion that Connecticut is not suffering from a revenue problem; it is suffering from a spending problem. Legislators simply lack the political courage and will to do what must be done to control spending – and that is the problem. The “solutions” hit upon by progressives in Connecticut’s Fun House General Assembly, full of distorting mirrors, far from solving Connecticut’s thirty year stretch of anemic business activity and shrinking revenue streams, exacerbate the problems.

The Connecticut Health Foundation is no friend of the cap. In 2001, the foundation released a study that claimed the cap had been effectively derailed “through the use of budget techniques such as lapses, carry forwards and the use of the surplus.” The study subtly suggests that the cap had caused legislators to resort to illicit means to balance budgets. However, the means used by artful legislators to escape the spending cap noose may be attributed to the presence of the cap only in the sense that the presence of banks “causes” bank robberies. If legislators had been determined to submit to the spirit and the letter of the constitutional cap, they then would have been forced to balance budgets through licit constitutionally prescribed means by cutting spending or increasing taxes. Or would they?  They almost certainly would not. Legislators push taxation on to future generations rather than raise taxes or cut spending to discharge deficits because the future has no vote in a present in which cowardly legislators are unwilling to accept the certain political consequences of their actions.

The authors of the foundation study were better number crunchers than political psychologists. According to the study, “The cap has been among the factors bringing down the overall rates of spending growth from an average rate of 10.8% a year from Fiscal Year 1987-1991 to 4.5% during FY 1995-2000.” So then, it worked. Laws work when criminals obey the laws. Constitutional provisions work when lawmakers submit to them.

Mr. Malloy has been coy on the question of a veto of progressive budget plans that violate the pledge of no new taxes implicit in his own budget proposal. Neither Republicans nor Democrats, Mr. Malloy said, has produced a budget that confronts hard choices: “You’ve got to make hard choices. That’s what leadership is.”

Quoting former Governor Lowell Weicker in a quite different context, Mr. Malloy, it is apparent, would rather reach an accommodation between pro-cut Republicans and pro-tax Democrats. “I don’t need to throw gasoline on the fire,” Mr. Malloy said.

In the meantime, finance committee Democrats, responding to steadily diminishing tax receipts, have raised taxes so much that Connecticut likely will enjoy a  $300 million in 2017 rather than a multi-billion dollar deficit.

Connecticut likely is reaching a point of diminishing returns in which high taxes produce less revenue, the result of unintended but predictable consequences. But progressive Democrats in the General Assembly are ready for this, and their solution is -- TA DA! -- higher taxes. A building is burning and, instead of quenching the fire with water, the firemen propose, in the felicitous phrase of Lowell Weicker, father of Connecticut's income tax, to douse the flames with gasoline.

Comments

peter brush said…
“You’ve got to make hard choices. That’s what leadership is.”
--------------
For increasing numbers of Connecticut citizens the choice to move out is not that hard. This is so because our majority politicians chosen by a majority of our fellow citizens are intellectually dishonest. The problem is spending spurred by an ideology of progress through social engineering. The problem is exacerbated in those states, like Connecticut, which are afflicted most with that ideology. This is so because they view labor unions in the public sector as social justice.
Real leadership requires understanding the State's history, and EXPLAINING the choices that inevitably are made. We've had over recent decades a massive increase in State government "programs." Does Dannel Malloy care to analyze for his flock how those programs are working so we self-governing Nutmeggers can make the hard decision whether to continue them or adjust them? How is that oldest and most expensive of programs, government education, working? Have our cities and towns become more humane after fifty years of urban planning, or have we with our progressive policies simply made them ghettos?
As Ralph Nader has said, consumer choices (what to buy, whether to buy, how much to buy) should not be based in fraud and misinformation. Most of the citizenry is wearing two hats; they both fund government and receive government's benefits. The citizens who wear only the hat of government recipient may be happy with the programs they've "bought," but I am sure that a majority of the rest of us are ready for the truth. Actually, it's not that painful to realize that the programs aren't working, that we don't need them, did fine without them, can't afford them anyway, so let's get rid of them or at least of the unions that administer them.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p