"The esthete stands in
the same relation to beauty as the pornographer stands to love,
and the politician stands to life” – Karl Kraus.
It’s a great puzzle for those who think seriously about
getting and spending. During his second winning campaign for governor, Dannel
Malloy took tax increases – but not increases in borrowing, the last refuge of
spending scoundrels -- off the table. Echoing George H.W. Bush’s boast at the 1988
Republican National Convention, Mr. Malloy invited Connecticut voters in so
many words to read his lips: NO NEW TAXES.
And yet, even Mr. Malloy’s own Office of Policy Management
guru, Ben Barnes, has told us that we shall have to get used to sluggish tax receipts,
at least for the foreseeable future. Mr. Malloy has pledged to hold
Connecticut’s Municipalities harmless, and so it will be difficult for him to
pass the state’s budget woes to towns by reducing their revenue allotments. He
has pledged not to renegotiate state contracts; no spending cuts there. He
plans to increase or maintain educational spending at its current levels. For
progressives – and we are all progressives now – education is a near sacred
fetish. Nothing must be done to deprive even those who are ill prepared for
college of an increasingly expensive education. No savings there.
On the matter of spending cuts, Mr. Malloy’s program is
beginning to resemble the much criticized program offered by his Republican
opponent during the recently concluded election. Mr. Foley, some may recall,
was mercilessly battered about the ears by most editorial boards in the state
because he had promised during his campaign not to increase taxes, not to
renegotiate state contracts, not to lay off state workers, a series of “nots”
that suggested Mr. Foley was not seriously interested in manfully confronting
Connecticut’s very serious spending problems.
Mr. Barnes may be prudent in anticipating an ongoing
“stagflation” in Connecticut. Revenue streams are not what they were when
Connecticut’s economy was robust. State spending increased rapidly, tripling in
the space of three governors, following the imposition of the Lowell P. Weicker
Jr. income tax, which was followed by disappearing surpluses that trailed off
into deficits, which was followed by the Dannel Malloy tax increase, the
largest in state history. Connecticut taxpayers, whose assets have been
depleted by a near depression followed by pocket-emptying tax increases, are
now looking down the barrel of a four year deficit amounting to, depending upon
whose accounting principles are applied, about $4 billion. State pension and
other liabilities amount to about $65 billion, not the rosiest of dawns.
Gas tax receipts, to take but one example, are bound to go
down because the price of oil has gone down. The price of energy is included in
the costs of all products and services in the United States, not merely at the
gas pump. As much as it may please consumers that some energy prices have
dipped, the news cannot be glad tidings for governors and others who need high energy
prices to maintain a level of spending that does not move them outside their
comfort zones. The worldwide reduction in oil prices very quickly made a
sourpuss of the usually affable President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, because
the Russian economy is heavily dependent on its chief European export. In
Moscow just now, anxious buyers are emptying the shelves in anticipation of
Russia’s coming monetary crisis. Things are not quite so bad in Hartford’s
Capitol, where politicians work their wonders.
In Connecticut, we are told, we should count our
blessings. We have Mr. Malloy’s word for it that he has “righted the ship,” that he is “working on a Big Vision,” that tax
policy will in the second Malloy administration “be driven by what we need to
do to have a great state that we all desire,” that as governor he was imbued
with the rare courage to “do what I felt was right, even if it would cost me an
election, which it did not,” that we must “make sure we have the right projects
to be funded to drive our investments.” If these bumper sticker bites should
strike anyone as stale campaign left-overs, it is because that is exactly what
they are.
The economic climate in Connecticut will not improve because
Mr. Malloy, the state’s investor-in-chief, has decided to take a tax dollar
from Citizen Smith and give it, as an “investment,” to the CEO of a large
international Connecticut based company who has decided to play Mr. Malloy’s crony
capitalist monopoly game. Companies that accept handouts from Mr. Malloy are,
almost by definition, "risky investments." If they did NOT need the handout, they
would be "prudent investments.”
The
great Austrian writer and social critic Karl Kraus acerbically
defined psychoanalysis as “the disease it purports to cure.” It is a definition
that might more appropriately be applied to Mr. Malloy’s crony capitalist
schemes, which cannot be financed without surpluses created by over taxation or
excessive borrowing at a time when Connecticut’s economy is stressed by high
taxes and burdensome regulations, both chronic problems neither of which will engage
the interest of Mr. Malloy during his next term.
Comments
-------------
The main complaint heard before Obama and Malloy took control was that health insurance was too expensive. But the pols decided to use the political energy represented by this populist complaint to construct an elaborate redistributionist rig whose ultimate failure they hoped might be finessed into a "single-payer" system. The Party of Chuck Schumer and Dan Mal-loy says it's for the middle class, but it's for the managers and beneficiaries of the welfare state. (It is with a chuckle that we read that Edith Prague is having difficulties with the State pension bureaucracy.) Health insurance under the Affordable Care regime will be both more expensive and less effective for people who work for a living.
-------------
Pete Spain knew he and his wife would have to find a new health plan for 2015 since their current policy is being discontinued at the end of the year. But the letter explaining it still contained a surprise: Buying a comparable plan next year would cost the Bridgeport couple nearly 58 percent more.
“That’s just a bigger hit than we expected,” he said.
The Spains are among more than 60,000 Connecticut residents with health plans that don’t meet the requirements of the federal health law. Many of them are receiving notices that their plans are being discontinued and that comparable, Obamacare-compliant plans will cost significantly more.
“I’m seeing in some cases 100 percent increases,” said Tim Tracy Jr., a Fairfield insurance broker and president of the Connecticut Chapter of the National Association of Health Underwriters...
Pete Spain looked at other options and figures they could buy a plan from another carrier for less money, but it would still be an increase. The lowest-cost standard plan sold through the exchange would cost them about $120 per month more than they pay now.
Spain is quick to note that he’s a Democrat who made more than 1,500 phone calls for Obama before the 2008 election. He thinks the health law will help to contain health care costs overall in the future. But he was surprised by the financial hit he and his wife will be facing next year.
“This is just kind of drastic,” he said. “And we’re lucky…We’ll figure something out. But I just feel bad for people who aren’t doing as well," who fall just above the limit for discounted coverage.
http://ctmirror.org/obamacare-discontinued-plans-and-sticker-shock-round-2/
You hit gold on your comment there.