The split between Connecticut’s two major parties is most
dramatic on the question of spending.
Governor Dannel Malloy took a pledge early in his administration,
after he had imposed upon the state the largest tax increase in its history,
reminiscent of a pledge made by former President H.W. Bush: No new tax
increases. Internal pressures were such during the Bush administration that the
president reneged on his pledge.
The pressures are always there, especially in tax prone
Connecticut. It was the fashion during the administration of Republican Maverick
turned Independent Lowell Weicker to regard deficits as revenue rather than spending
problems; and, of course, the solution to a revenue problem is to boost
revenue.
This misperception – always encouraged by politicians uncomfortable
with spending cuts – had tripled the bottom line of Connecticut’s budgets
within the space of three governors. Focused on revenue boosts, Mr. Weicker and
succeeding Republican Governors John Rowland and Jodi Rell rarely were put in
the uncomfortable position of having to disappoint powerful union interests.
Spending inched inexorably up.
When Mr. Malloy was installed as governor, it was generally
supposed that the spending tap would be turned wide open. The so called
“firewalls,” Republican governors who had offered a mild resistance to spending
increases, were gone: Laissez les bons temps rouler, as they say during Marti Gras in New Orleans that precedes
an abstemious Lent .
Democratic
leaders in the General Assembly, impatient with the snail’s pace progress of a
self-proclaimed progressive governor, have now proposed changes in the Malloy
budget that increase spending by 10 percent. There is every reason to believe
that Democrats stuck on stupid are still in a “let the good times roll” frame
of mind.
And why not? Moderate Republican office holders in
Connecticut have been washed away by the onrushing progressive high tide.
Consider the number of Republican moderates who have fallen in recent years
under the boots of the progressive hordes in Connecticut. Within Connecticut’s
all Democratic U.S. Congressional delegation alone, three moderate Republicans
– Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons and Chris Shays, the last moderate Republican in
New England before he surrendered his seat to current Democratic U.S. Representative
Jim Himes -- had been replaced by ambitious progressives. Mr. Malloy and his Lieutenant Governor Nancy
Wyman proudly march cheek by jowl with striking union workers, and no one
winces. The largest tax increase in Connecticut history was accompanied with a
union deal that assured salary and benefit increases to state workers of 3
percent nine years out, an arrangement at first rejected by union
representatives, which rejection was characterized by Edith Prague, a longtime
supporter of Connecticut unions, as a form of unthinking madness.
Despite a stalled
economy, the progressive parade in Connecticut marches merrily and heedlessly
on. Occasional disputes with leaders in the opposition party are imperiously
brushed aside by Democrats who outnumber Republicans in the state by a commanding
two to one majority. The difference in sheer numbers relieves Democrats of the
necessity of quibbling over crucial economic points imperfectly grasped by an
easily distractible media in the grip of an economic vise that has considerably
reduced its own numbers.
What all this
really means is that Mr. Malloy has now become Connecticut’s spending “firewall.”
And the governor is surrounded by progressive Democrats quite certain that more
spending will hasten the arrival of better times, a philosophy of governance to
which Mr. Malloy also subscribes. On matters upon which there are some discernible
differences between Mr. Malloy and the Democrat dominated General Assembly –
say, education reform – Mr. Malloy’s programs have been refined by progressive leaders in the legislature. Both President Pro Tem of the Senate Don Williams
and Speaker of the House Brendan Sharkey have had a good deal of practice in
curbing the modest ambitions of past Republican governors, and there is no
reason to suppose they will not employ their talents to frustrate a governor
who proves to be insufficiently progressive on matters they consider
ideologically important – like, to fetch for one example, ramping up the
progressive income tax on Connecticut Gold Coast millionaires.
While Mr. Malloy
has said he is averse to tax increases, he has moved steadily in the direction
of increasing state revenue through a series of measures – borrowing money to
pay off budget expenses, reneging on a gentleman’s agreement with “bad” energy
producers to liquidate a “temporary” tax on the production of electricity,
boosting the notorious gross receipt tax on gasoline, and short-sheeting
hospitals, to cite but four examples – that most charitably may be described as
revenue enhancers.
All eyes in the
General Assembly are fastened on the governor. Given an inch, progressive
legislators have now demanded a yard – a ten percent increase in spending. It
is precisely incremental increasing in spending of this kind that has tripled
the bottom line of Connecticut budgets since the imposition of the state income
tax in 1991, a short two decades ago. Progressives in the General Assembly are
betting that while the governor’s no tax increase spirit is willing, his progressive
Democratic flesh is weak. Because taxing and spending are inextricably
connected, the easiest way to drive up taxes by 10 percent is to increasespending by 10 percent. And the red ink, in progressive strategy, is little
more than an inducement to impose a steeper progressive tax on greedy hedge
fund managers living the life in Fairfield County.
Comments