The progressive wing
of the Democratic Party, now in the ascendency in Connecticut, has been trying
to “reform” the tax system ever since it was last reformed in 1991 by then
Governor Lowell Weicker, the father of Connecticut’s income tax.
In the course of its
story, CTMirror quotes William Cibes, identified as “state budget director
under Weicker and also co-chairman of the finance committee in 1989-90,” on
property taxes. Mr. Cibes recently testified before the General Assembly’s
Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, which in the next few weeks will
endorse a measure “that could launch a top-to-bottom analysis of how Connecticut
taps taxpayers’ wallets.” Mr. Cibes testified that “high property taxes are a
major reason why Connecticut’s tax system is broken. So property tax relief
would lessen the economic burden on businesses, municipalities and individuals…
Property taxes are relatively stable. But when a state relies excessively on
property taxes to fund important services like education, infrastructure and
public safety, businesses and individuals are punished.”
Mr. Cibes’ statement was remarkably similar to an earlier Op-Ed piece printed in CTMirror written by John A. Elsesser, the town
manager of Coventry: “The good thing about property taxes is that they are
relatively stable. As part of an overall revenue structure, which is relatively
balanced among taxes on property, sales and income, they make sense. But when a
state relies excessively on local property taxes to fund governmental services,
as does Connecticut, it’s reasonable to begin working to fix what House Speaker
Brendan Sharkey has termed a ‘broken’ tax system.”
Mr. Cibes and Mr. Weicker were both prime movers in the effort to adopt
an income tax. While campaigning for governor, former Republican U.S. Senator
Weicker, running within a party of his own making, had eschewed an income tax
as a means of liquidating a Democratic generated billion dollar deficit.
Adopting an income tax, gubernatorial campaigner Weicker said, would be “like
pouring gasoline on a fire.” Mr. Cibes had run for governor on an income tax
platform, but he and his platform were decisively rejected at the time by 65%
of Democrats.
While Connecticut’s income tax was muscled through the General Assembly
by Governor Weicker, the income tax idea and its implementation originated with
Mr. Cibes, whom Mr. Weicker tapped to head the state’s Office of Policy
Management. Declining to run for a second term as governor, a grateful Weicker,
before leaving office, created a plush featherbed for Mr. Cibes, appointing him
the first Chancellor of Connecticut’s new Connecticut State University System.
Like old soldiers, old political operatives never die, but neither do they fade
away. They become associated with lobbying firms or pad their retirements with
pensions drawn from tax dollars.
It should surprise no one, least of all the editors of CTMirror, that
Mr. Cibes continues to insist that Connecticut is undertaxed. Mr. Cibes
certainly is within easy reach of the reporters and editors of CTMirror. Mr.
Weicker’s former OPM chief was one of the co-founders of CTMirror and serves on its board of directors, as does Stanley
Twardy, former Chief of Staff for Mr. Weicker. According to a report in Raising Hale, CTMirror is
published by Connecticut News Project. A review of political contributions by
board members of CTMirror shows that eight of the ten board members have made donations to political candidates
totaling more than $125,000, seventy five percent of which enriched Democrats.
The Weicker-Cibes income tax of 1991 dropped the sales tax rate from 8%
to 6% and the corporate tax rate from 13.8% to 11.5%. A Rainy Day tax fund,
since depleted by spendthrifts in the General Assembly, was also introduced,
along with a largely irrelevant constitutional expenditure cap. Through
inadvertence or design, the Democrat dominated General Assembly never quite got
around to implementing the constitutional cap and, following the passage of the
Weicker-Cibes income tax, spending in the state tripled within the space of
three governors, two of whom were Republicans.
Mr. Cibes’ pitch on the necessity of tax increases sounds wearily
familiar, especially coming on the heels of Governor Dannel Malloy’s massive
tax increase, the largest in state history, which out-revenued even the
Weicker-Cibes income tax.
Commending a plan put forward by “Better Choices For Connecticut”, progressive tax grabbers, Mr. Cibes argued a few years ago in his pitch for
higher taxes that Connecticut could not possibly offset its deficit through
spending reductions alone, and he called for a “fair share’ sacrifice on the
part of taxpayers and tax gobblers, a motif candidate for governor Dannel
Malloy deployed effectively in his campaign.
The revenue proposals promoted by “Better Choices For Connecticut” and
embraced by Mr. Cibes included an increase in the income tax for “those who can
best afford it,” likely anyone making more than $250,000 per year, an increase
in corporate taxes and an increase in the sales tax. The corrective measures
promoted by Mr. Cibes insert progressive features into the Weicker-Cibes income
tax, considered by some when it was passed as insufficiently progressive. At
the time of passage, Mr. Cibes had told the New York Times that the architecture
of the tax made it more progressive than it seemed. But progressives believe
you can never have enough of a good thing.
Once the new revenue proposals are imposed on the Weicker-Cibes income tax,
Connecticut will have adopted the same tax scheme Mr. Cibes promoted when he
ran for governor way back in 1991. Property tax relief is little more than a
convenient cover that will allow progressive Democrats to boost taxes when,
after the upcoming elections, the state once again finds itself confronting a
$2 billion deficit brought on by exorbitant spending. And the reporters and
editors at CTMirror are too bright not to have noticed the obvious sham. One
can only conclude that in failing to report sufficiently on one of its board of
directors, CTMirror did not wish to place before its readers such inconvenient
truths as might disturb Mr. Cibes and others who financially support the Connecticut News Project.
Comments
I submit that we must include those who work for government with those who live in society and benefit from it but pay no taxes as before government employees can be paid, that money must be taken bu threat of force from those of us who work in the private sector. How much longer we can continue robbing Peter to pay Paul with the full support of Paul is a matter of conjecture but it can not go on forever.
One of the best definitions of Liberalism I have seen to date: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers. And on it goes.
Very well said.
It might be interesting to trace the initial source -- probably Cibes or someone else in academia (UConn?) However, if all the birds are singing with a single beak, does it really matter?
-------------
Yes, but raising taxes is for Mr. Cibes a "last resort" after reasonable spending cuts, better lobbying for federal bucks, and more efficient "tax expenditures." After all, it is a "myth" that Connecticut's taxes on business or individuals are too high. The important thing is that Connecticut keep an eye on New Jersey and New York to make sure that in the race to the bottom they stay ahead.
I'd be curious to hear how this professional government manager explains the lack of job growth since the income tax has been in place. The New Haven Register's intimates an explanation that makes sense to me. Might also explain why Connecticut has the highest debt per capita of any state.
---------------
EDITORIAL: Connecticut has zero job growth since 1990 while government spending has increased 250%
By Register Editorial Staff
POSTED: 02/01/11
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-debt-per-capita-figures.html