CT General Assembly
“No man’s life,
liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session” -- Gideon
John Tucker (1826–1899), American lawyer, newspaper editor, and New York politician
The tax rebate check we were told for (weeks) was “in the
mail” is no longer in the mail. Instead, the Hartford Courant tells us,
“hundreds of millions of dollars will be funneled to cities and towns in order
to avoid local property tax increases, as mayors and first selectmen will be
urged to hold the line on spending in the next fiscal year.”
Rebates, rather than tax cuts, are instantly revocable at
the pleasure of Democrat leaders in the state General Assembly. Rebates should
be regarded by state taxpayers and reporters as temporary political coupons
designed to bring into the Democrat Party fold hard pressed voters who surely
know the difference between a permanent or semi-permanent price reduction and a
temporary coupon offered at the pleasure of a provider of goods and services.
A tax cut leaves prospective tax payments in the hands of
taxpayers. A tax rebate is first collected by the state and then partly
returned – or not – to tax payers. In the case under examination, the tax
rebate promised to taxpayers months before the upcoming elections will instead be
distributed to municipalities as a tax relief program that will offer no real net-tax
relief to taxpayers. While the flow of taxation will be changed, the amount of
taxes will remain the same. Taxes will not be cut. More importantly to dominant
Democrats in the General Assembly, leading legislators (read: Democrat
legislative gatekeepers in the General Assembly) will not be forced to cut net-spending
to pay either for the temporary tax rebate or the repurposed tax rebate.
This is a win, win proposition for hegemonic Democrats in
Connecticut. In “the state of steady (bad) habits,” it is considered
politically inconvenient for tax stakeholders to even mention the words “reduce
spending.” And the possibility of permanent spending reductions is nearly
always considered a political calamity among spendthrift Democrats and the
state’s reportorial chorus.
Governor Ned Lamont’s response to
the repurposed tax rebate is strained to the point of absurdity.
Lamont said, “I have heard directly from mayors, first
selectmen, superintendents, students, and taxpayers across Connecticut who are
feeling the squeeze of rising costs. This $270 million is a direct response to
the strains being placed on town, school district, and family budgets. By
closing funding gaps for our schools and municipalities, we can help
communities avoid raising property taxes while keeping classrooms running and
local services strong. Affordability is a top priority for this administration,
and this investment delivers real relief where people feel it most.”
Just to begin with, the “squeeze
of rising costs” felt by Connecticut taxpayers is due to federal government
caused inflation, non-payment of costs incurred by state government –
Connecticut’s net tax-supported debt (NTSD) debt is nearly the highest in the
nation – and improvident spending. All spending in the face of mounting debt is
improvident. The classic definition of inflation is: “Too many dollars chasing
too few goods. Inflation, a reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar, is
government caused; state debt is government caused. The Inflation problem is
answered when the federal government pays its debt through tax increases or
spending reductions or both, rather than flooding what is left of the free
market with devalued currency and excessive borrowing.
Connecticut's total state
government debt is approximately $26 billion as of 2026.
A requested Office of Legislative Research report sent to the General
Assembly in September 2024 notes, ominously, “Connecticut had the highest NTSD
as a percent of own-source revenue at 103.8%, greater than the median of 24.5%
for all states.”
The “squeeze” referenced by
Lamont, in other words, may properly be laid at the feet of spendthrift
politicians for whom debt, however high, is not viewed as an impediment to
spending. Both inflation and budget deficits are caused by improvident
politicians who seek, just in time for reelection, to offer false solutions to
problems they themselves have caused.
Lamont was not alone in patting
himself on the back. “For the Hartfords, the Bridgeports, the East Hartfords,
the Meridens, the Waterburys, there’s a lot of money in there,” said House
Speaker Matt Ritter, a lifelong Hartford resident. “We’re hoping they’ll use it
to reduce property taxes or stabilize their budget for a couple of years. Don’t
blow it all at once. But it’s a gift — I shouldn’t say gift. That’s the wrong
word. It’s a grant that they did not see coming.”
The distinction between Ritter’s
gift and a grant is paper thin. Ritter is gifting or granting other people’s
money to the cities Democrats depend on for reelection, and the problem with
granting other people’s money to politically favored groups is, as Prime
Minister of Great Britain Maggie Thatcher once said, “Sooner or later you run
out of other people’s money.” There is another problem as well: Why should any
of us suppose that an allocation of other people’s money by Ritter will be
money well spent – or better and more profitably spent than the same funds
distributed by a fair and equitable free market system?
Comments