Skip to main content

Looney to Connecticut’s Middle Class: Your Money Or Your Life


Politicians, like most people, tend to repeat successful behaviors long after they have ceased to be successful. In the political arena, one must carefully define “success.”

It ought to be obvious by now that what is good for the political goose is not always good for the non-political gander. High taxes, for instance, are good for progressive politicians, because boosting taxes rather than cutting spending does not generally bruise the tender relations between the progressive politician and his politically active supporters, who most often fall on the tax consuming side of the political barricades; state worker unions, for instance, flourish under the care of progressive politicians.


People from whom taxes are collected, on the other hand, tend to be antagonistic towards tax demanding politicians, because taxes are drawn from their own wells: Every dollar taken from Peter to pay to Paul leaves Peter poorer, less independent, less able to tend responsibly to his own affairs and, in the end, less able to support Paul.

Such are the positive and negative poles in politics. The trick always is to wend one’s way through the political poles without being struck by a fatal electrical charge, the bolt of lightning that has reduced to cinders the careers of many a clever politician.

Here in Connecticut – a state that has for many years lived off the fat of the land – times have changed, and not for the better. Measured by almost every important datum, Connecticut has been for some time slipping down the slippery slope.

It should surprise no one that Connecticut taxes are the fourth highest in the nation; this at a time when businesses are moving to states where tax piranhas are less vicious. Governor Lowell Weicker, an expatriate from the Republican Party, hung an income tax albatross around Connecticut’s neck after several non-income tax balanced budgets were presented to him by a cautious, income tax averse General Assembly. The income tax was not only a large tax bump; it was a signal to wealth-producing businesses outside Connecticut to avoid moving to a state that had shown itself incapable of attacking rampant spending.

Succeeding governors and legislators took full advantage of the license to spend provided by the income tax, which was good for tax consumers and bad for tax suppliers. Politicians in Connecticut, both Republican and Democrat, have successfully raised taxes because thus far the political penalty attached to a bump in taxes has been less ruinous to them politically than the only economically viable alternative – reducing long term spending.

Following in Mr. Weicker’s footsteps, Governor Dannel Malloy, during his first term in office, imposed on Connecticut the largest tax increase in state history. The Democratic dominated tax writing committee this term has produced its own tax larded, spending friendly budget. The signals are unambiguous: Connecticut has now demonstrated that it CANNOT put its economic house through permanent spending reductions. And the whole world is watching.

Progressives in the General Assembly have said that permanent reductions in spending are impossible. It is impossible, for instance, to permanently reduce pension expenditures by raising the retirement age for state workers two years, because any effective measure that might successfully reduce the state’s $44 billion pension liability afflicting the state's two largest pension systems and its two retiree health benefit programs for teachers and state workers would require the co-operation of unions that are, naturally, opposed to the surrender of any portion of their outsized benefits. The retirement age for state workers is determined by years of service: Normal retirement occurs at age 60 when vesting service is 25 years; if vesting service is at least 10 but less than 25 years, state workers may retire at age 62; if vesting service is five years, state workers may retire at age 70.

“Retired Connecticut state employees received the highest annual pensions in the country in 2011, despite contributing less out of their paychecks than the national average,” the New London Day reported more than a year ago. “That meant the state's pension system was the second-most underfunded in the United States, in worse shape than every other state's except Illinois'.”

For progressives, any attempt to change the retirement schedule of state employees would necessarily incur the wrath of their political supporters. As the state becomes more and more committed to ruinous progressive ideas, politics more and more becomes the art of the impossible. This year, progressives in the General Assembly have made reductions in pensions impossible by removing pension expenditures from the state’s spending cap.

With the blessing of Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney, the Democrat dominated budget writing committee this year has expanded Connecticut’s sales tax, making the tax less friendly to Connecticut’s struggling Middle Class. Mr. Looney proposes to share a portion of the increased sales taxes with municipalities that have been far more successful in controlling spending than Mr. Looney’s progressives in the General Assembly. Told that the new municipal revenues – to which the state will no doubt attach strings – might spur more municipal spending, Mr. Looney responded, “We are looking at trying to do something that is transformative.” He sought to dampen fears of “over opulent” municipal spending by noting that such charges were “knee jerk reactions” to the proposed sales tax increase.

Mr. Looney insists that the new municipal funds – drawn from a broader based sales tax hurtful to Connecticut’s overtaxed, struggling Middle Class – will not be squandered by spendthrift municipalities because “spending controls,” including a cap on municipal car taxes, will be a part of the exchange; this from a progressive state government that only yesterday, so it seems, avoided reducing pension debt and made a deficit disappear by removing pension liabilities from the state's constitutional cap.

Mr. Looney’s scheme may be helpful to progressive municipal politicians, but even some moderate Democrats are beginning to wonder whether progressivism in the state is good for Connecticut’s economy and its besieged Middle Class – not to mention their own political futures.


Comments

peter brush said…
even some moderate Democrats are beginning to wonder
----------
I have been wondering for a while. I don't see that telling government employees who's the boss by imposing prudent benefit cuts is necessarily a political loser. Even some government workers can see the downside to killing the egg-laying goose, and recognize that bankruptcy of the employer is not beneficial, as it were, to the employees regardless of promises made to them by mendacious representatives of the people. Participants in the dreaded private sector are well aware of how difficult it is to survive in Nutmegistan, and are well aware of how little they benefit from government spending they are financing. My roto-rooter guy (not the contractor, but the employee with the snake) pays $5000 in federal income taxes and $5000 in property taxes on his East Hartford estate. On the other hand, my friend Marilyn, who occasionally appreciates a lift to the bottle recycling facility, has new dentures courtesy of Medicaid. If we were to have a rising tide lifting all boats perhaps Mr. Roto wouldn't notice that he's being abused, but in stead, Fleet Commander Malloy insists there's plenty of water and distributes more anchors to all the suckers in their row boats. Believe me, Mr. Roto is not blind to how his money is being taken and misspent.

A liberal with sanity could win Statewide elections. He'd have to be at least moderately courageous, and speak out for fiscal prudence regardless of the mega-phonic moans and groans of the special interests who are apparently willing to run the ship into the rocks rather than get one penny less than is "their right." He'd get the votes of a lot of presently hopeless and disaffected Roto-rooter guys. In the mean time, the sailing looks pretty good in Texas, Oklahoma, and Indiana.
peter brush said…
Lawmakers Remain Hopeful There’s Time To Pass Paid Family Leave
-----------
Not satisfied with merely providing disincentives to stay, apparently our Legislative and Executive guys are now considering paying families to leave. And, never forget, love makes a family, and that we Nutmeggers not only permit gay marriage, but we demand that you like it.
==============

Senate, House Pass Bills To Help Connecticut’s Dreamers
------------------
Right there in the 1965 Nutmeg Constitution it says taxpayers have an obligation to help all who can't help themselves wherever or whoever they may be. It's about time we helped these unfortunate people who are, according to a Brookings study, subjected to a "successions of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that occur usually INVOLUUNTARILY in the mind during certain stages of sleep."
-----------
"The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a FREE government; ...
That the great and essential principles of liberty and FREE government may be recognized and established,

WE DECLARE:

SEC. 1. All men when they form a social compact, are EQUAL in rights..."

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