tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069955.post4113991782414098363..comments2023-10-26T08:02:44.948-04:00Comments on Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State: Connecticut Clipping The Constitutional SilverDon Pescihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11167988001948356357noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069955.post-6652031133941672422015-04-29T09:44:51.649-04:002015-04-29T09:44:51.649-04:00The Connecticut constitutional cap, passed by vote...The Connecticut constitutional cap, passed by voters in 1992, enforces the same strictures; the General Assembly, however, has not passed implementing legislation defining the cap’s terms. <br />----------<br />The general assembly shall by law define "increase in personal income", "increase in inflation" and "general budget expenditures" for the purposes of this section and may amend such definitions, from time to time, provided general budget expenditures shall not include expenditures for the payment of bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness. <br />-------------<br />The committee recommended removing from under the cap more than $2 billion per year in contributions to pension plans and other retirement benefit programs — items that never have been exempted from the cap.<br /><br />And as Republicans argued this couldn't be done, Bye and Walker said they understood there probably would be a lengthy discussion about legal interpretations of the cap as a final budget plan is negotiated with the Malloy administration over the next seven weeks.<br /><br />“The spending cap is not well defined,” said Sen. Robert Kane, R-Watertown. “I’ve been in the legislature seven years, and I’ve never heard a proper definition from either side.”<br /><br />The ranking GOP senator on appropriations added he would like to see the cap studied, but in order to better impose the fiscal controls voters sought more than two decades ago.<br />-------<br />It seems to me that the problem is not so much a lack of clarity or "definition" in the Nutmeg Constitution's Article XXVIII, but a lack of intellectual honesty in the Connecticut electorate and its politicians. Maybe we need an Article XXXI that says the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary will not dissemble, prevaricate, or lie when interpreting the terms of the previous 30 amendments attached to the previous 14 articles. Maybe if we have a really comprehensive progressive constitution in Nutmegistan we can institute honesty and patriotic virtue in the Electorate and its corporate management. <br />peter brushnoreply@blogger.com