Skip to main content

The Porcupine Cometh


Thanks Jeff Cohen
“People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, or before an election” – Otto Von Bismarck

“I am a porcupine” – Dannel Malloy

The endorsements of Governor Dannel Malloy prior to Vote Day (VD) were not full throated. In fact, many Malloy endorsements made by editorial boards the members of which could not bring themselves to recommend as governor a guy who owned a yacht named "Odalisque" were so hedged about with thorns that the rose was barely visible among them.

A Hartford paper’s editorial endorsement was typical of most. The paper mentioned some minuses and pluses, added up the sums and endorsed the incumbent governor. Over the years, the paper had fallen into the bad habit of reflexively endorsing incumbents, and in Connecticut all the leading positions in government – the governor’s office, the constitutional offices, the members of the U.S. Congressional delegation and the leadership of the state’s General Assembly – are held by Democrats, which makes endorsements a snap for left of center editorial boards. Most editorial endorsements of Mr. Malloy were re-writes that required little independent thinking.


On the plus side, the paper noted in so many words, Mr. Malloy is the most progressive governor in state history, a tax and spend guy -- We like that; we have always liked that -- and a bit of a porcupine who relishes throwing campaign quills in the direction of businessmen yacht owners presumptuous enough to run against him. During one of their debates, Mr. Malloy turned on Mr. Foley and asked what effect he thought the naming of his yacht, “Odalisque,” might have had on Mr. Foley’s three-year-old children. The correct answer would have been “None.” And Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Foley might have retorted that questions involving his three-year-old children, generally considered out of bounds in gubernatorial debates, were a little too quilly for his taste.  Mr. Malloy’s administration, the paper said in its favorable endorsement, is “better than it may look.”

The paper was weary of Mr. Foley’s persistent iterations.  The guy who owned the yacht had noted countless times in debates that Mr. Malloy had pulled $1.9 billion in taxes from Connecticut’s battered economy in the midst of a persistent recession, which persisted nationally because progressive Democrats had pulled a massive amount of entrepreneurial capital from a gasping, capital starved private market place. But the largest tax increase in Connecticut history, the paper trumpeted, was necessary because, once in office, Mr. Malloy found himself facing a $3.7 Billion budget deficit; and so he “attempted to meet the problem head on, with almost $1.9 billion of tax increases, union concessions, consolidation of state agencies and other spending reductions.” Comes the thorns: “It didn't work exactly according to script. Union concessions didn't reach the hoped-for level of savings. The fix was predicated on a level of economic recovery that didn't happen."

Thorn, rose, thorn, thorn, thorn, rose, thorn, another thorn, and once you've toted everything up – endorsement Malloy.

The paper’s second endorsement of Malloy was little more than a re-write of its first endorsement, which was a re-write of its endorsement more than twenty years earlier of former Governor Lowell Weicker, the instigator of Connecticut’s income tax. Weicker had also faced a challenging deficit. Easy as shooting fish in a barrel, takes no thought at all. You just array your prejudices and endorse the most leftward leaning candidate. Occasionally, but not often enough, reality disturbs the slothful imagination. A few days after Mr. Malloy was re-installed, the paper tacked on to its endorsement the following caveat: “This editorial was updated Friday to remove a reference to Mr. Malloy making a "$100 million start at paying down the state's massive unfunded pension obligation." The plan to add the additional money in the pension fund was dropped earlier this year.”

Thorn.

We knew that after the election the porcupine would emerge from the closet. Following his successful election, Mr. Malloy attended a National Governors Association meeting in Colorado.  He returned home to a $99.5 million deficit, about which Mr. Malloy said after one of his debates with the yacht guy -- there will be no deficit. No matter, the deficit, Mr. Malloy told the media, was “de minimis” and easily could be handled though a recission process during which Mr. Malloy would not have to present to the Democratic dominated General Assembly thorny budget difficulties. He could handle the tiny hole in the budget himself through rescissions, a little budget nip and tuck that would result in neither spending cuts nor additional taxation. 

Mr. Malloy’s budget chief, Ben Barnes, then stepped forward to announce that the budget deficit about which the yacht guy made such a to-do during the Malloy-Foley debates – which Mr. Malloy declared would not raise its hoary head anytime in the near future – had suddenly and unexpectedly reappeared. One paper noted, “According to the nonpartisan legislative analyst’s report, the state faces a $1.32 billion deficit in 2016 — up from a $1.278 billion projection a few months ago — and a $1.4 billion deficit in 2017.” On this occasion, the election season now being closed, Mr. Malloy did not bother to dispute budget deficit figures brought forward by the state’s non-partisan analysts. He had done so in the campaign debates, insisting that deficit figures provided by the legislature’s non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis were wrongly computed.

They weren’t wrong for long. The Malloy administration has yet to put on stage its Jonathan Gruber, the Obamacare whiz kid who astonished the nation by letting the cat out of Obama-con bag. Mr. Barnes is not yet there – close though: “We have entered into a period of permanent fiscal crisis in state and local government, it seems. But that said, I think that we've made a lot of progress in trying to find ways to make our government more sustainable. I'm hopeful that we will come to a new equilibrium in which, when times are unexpectedly good, we produce surpluses that we set aside to cover us for when times are bad."

Mr. Barnes and Mr. Malloy, both full of pleasant dreams, are waiting patiently for a 15 percent income tax growth rate, at which point national prosperity will lift Connecticut’s recession boat. Two massive tax increases – the Weicker and the Malloy tax boosts -- have resulted in a net job growth close to zero since 1991.

In the post-election period, sleight of hand is everywhere brazenly displayed. Days after the election, Treasury Secretary Denise Nappier, who won election by a whisker, announced she was transferring money from bond proceeds to back-fill the rising deficit; at roughly the same time, the Bonding Commission,controlled by Mr. Malloy, announced it would exceed by about $167 million a “voluntary bonding cap established by Mr. Malloy.”

In the absence of the indispensable Gruber, we may lean upon Bismarck’s always serviceable apothegm: “People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, or before an election”   

Comments

peter brush said…
Thanks, Don; an unusually superlative piece. One quill it seems to me wasn't discussed at all during the "campaign" was the Mal-loy Medicaid Expansion under Gruber-care. The "Courant" did take note a couple of years ago of the cost of Malloy's policy, but the "report" you refer-link us to emphasizes that Malloy won, not despite his affiliation with President Pen-and-Phone, but because of it.
Of course, I disagree with the political analysis. Malloy's Obama embrace didn't hurt him with the moon-bat base, but it didn't help in the middle. That's where encumbency, inertia, media prostitution, and Foley's lame campaign came in to pick up the slack.
------------
The state's $365 million budget deficit dates, in part, to two years ago when Connecticut became the first state to expand medical coverage to low-income adults as an early adopter of federal health care reform.

In 2010, Connecticut had the largest percentage increase of any state in Medicaid enrollment among low-income adults — a 32 percent jump.
http://articles.courant.com/2012-11-19/business/hc-medicaid-deficit-connecticut-20121119_1_medicaid-bill-total-
medicaid-medicaid-population
-----------
"What made Malloy distinctive this year was that he did not distance himself from President Obama, as many others did," said Ronald Schurin, a professor of political science at UConn.

"I never ran away from the president. I believe in the policy initiatives of this administration," Malloy said at a press conference the day after he won re-election, praising his own cabinet for "the best implementation of the Affordable Care Act of any state in the nation."
Don Pesci said…
All that's right. A pending Supreme Court decision may torpedo everything. We'll see.
peter brush said…
Mal-loy Medicaid Expansion
---------
Quasi-correction: What with Malloy's exuberant bragging about his operation of the Connecticut Obamacare franchise, it's easy to forget that it was Republican Governor Jodi Rell who on Connecticut's behalf contracted Medicaid Expansion under Obamacare.
On the Bright side: Amazingly, with the advent of Herr Gruber's Wicked Good Patient Protection Rig almost up and ruining, we have managed to completely rid ourselves of an existing government program!
-------------
As of December 1, 2013, the Charter Oak Health Plan is no longer accepting applications, and will be ending at the end of 2013.
http://www.charteroakhealthplan.com/coh/site/default.asp
-------------
Foley said Charter Oak fills a need now, but that the rates it pays health care providers are too low, producing a cost-shift that raises costs for private insurance.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dan Malloy said Charter Oak seemed to have too few doctors participating and called it "an unworkable system."
"Everything I've read about it leads me to the belief that it has been largely a failure," Malloy said, although he added that he is not an expert on the program.
http://ctmirror.org/will-rells-charter-oak-health-plan-initiative-survive-when-she-leaves/
peter brush said…
Days after the election, Treasury Secretary Denise Nappier, who won election by a whisker, announced she was transferring money from bond proceeds to back-fill the rising deficit
----
Nappier explained that the transfers were necessary because of the current budget deficit and the decision by the federal government not to pay the state for some of its Medicaid population.

The federal government deferred partial payment to the state for its expanded Medicaid population during the summer. Since the legislature moved Medicaid outside of the normal budgeting process, the deferral wasn’t reflected in surplus or deficit figures

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/states_cash_position_deteriorates/
-------
The normal budgeting process? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that there is no "normal?" Celebrate diversity in accounting procedure?

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

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."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e