At some point in the not too distant future, possibly in his
budget message on February 18, Governor Dannel Malloy will repent of his
campaign promise not to raise taxes. In the journalism business, we call this
“eating crow.”
One reporter could not help but note in his story that Mr. Malloy had for four years assured
“cities and towns they would be spared from the state budget axe.”
That was then.
Now, before a Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST) gathering
in Cromwell, Mr. Malloy hastened to add a codicil to his previous no tax
increase pledge, iterated repeatedly on the stump during his successful
re-election campaign: “We have to wrestle with the budget. I hope that we’ll
have a budget that we can all live and prosper with.” However, Mr. Malloy added
ominously, “I’m doing my best, but no promises.”
The promises had long since been made, and Mr. Malloy’s
backtracking must have sounded alarmingly like a retraction to the COST
representatives in Cromwell.
The towns have reason to be suspicious. Connecticut towns
are the Atlases of state mandates, carrying on their backs worlds of expenses
piled there by solicitous state politicians, none of whom wish to incur the
expenses that attach to bills originating in the General Assembly. Every time
the state issues a mandate to a town, it is ordering the town to dig into its own
budget and spend money it ordinarily might use for some other purpose that
would more directly benefit the town. A dollar spent in satisfying the state’s
mandates is a dollar of municipal taxes that might be spent hiring a teacher or
improving curricula or investing money in the town’s crumbling infrastructure
or devoting tax dollars to projects that directly benefit the town. At some
point, an additional mandate really does become the straw that breaks the
municipal back. Some would argue the towns already have arrived at the
breakpoint; though, of course, the members of the aptly named COST would have
been too polite to mention such matters to Mr. Malloy at a public gathering.
Mr. Malloy’s pessimism has not yet overcome his optimism,
but clouds clearly are drifting over his once sunny prospects. Mr. Malloy’s budget proposal
will be presented to the General Assembly on February 18. He is now “grappling”
as one news account puts it, “with projected shortfalls of $1.3 billion next
fiscal year and $1.5 billion in 2016-17.”
But Mr. Malloy’s neck has been in this noose before. On first assuming office, Mr. Malloy, faced with a deficit left on his doorstep
by his three irresponsible gubernatorial predecessors, discharged the deficit
awaiting him by instituting the largest tax increase in state history. And here
we are once again in low dive. This time Mr. Malloy has promised not to
increase taxes or renegotiate union contracts with state employees, pretty much
the same program offered by his Republican gubernatorial opponent, Tom Foley,
who was laughed off the editorial pages in Connecticut newspapers as a
non-serious candidate for governor. Then too, the long awaited Connecticut
recovery is stumbling over predictable though unseen obstacles, including
diminishing gas tax receipts, diminishing cigarette tax receipts and
diminishing income taxes.
In its fervor for spending money the state does not have on
Big Bling projects, Connecticut may have reached a point of diminishing
returns. The more you tax and regulate – and remember, a regulation is a tax by
other means – the less you receive, once you have passed a point of diminishing
returns. High taxes lead to diminished returns because whatever you tax tends
to disappear. When heavy taxes on
cigarettes drive smokers from the market, or when the taxable cigarette product
is replaced by some newfangled non-taxed invention, the e-cigarette, tax
receipts diminish. Fracking, which resulted in an excess supply of oil, drove
down the price of gas. When the cost of a product is reduced, taxes squeezed
from it suffer the same reduction. Spending wildly from overtaxed and absurdly over regulated products and services, politicians eventually find themselves
hoisted on their own petards – and lose office. To put it in economic terms, it
becomes cheaper to replace them with cheaper politicians.
Connecticut may not be there yet because it is not yet
obvious to tribunes of the people that the beast’s back can bear no more tax or
regulatory weight. But listen closely, and you will hear in the sunny prognoses
of big spenders the cracking that occurs when the final straw is added to
camel’s back. There is a hitch in the voice, a sudden swoop in the smile of the
magician who promises and fails to pull the rabbit from his hat.
Comments
-----------
There's the rub. No matter the situation on the ground, no matter the unfunded liability, no matter the present deficit, and especially no matter how obviously failed are the progressive programs, the politicians don't lose elections. The electorate is increasingly incapable of seeing reality, and views itself as entitled to state largess. Those of a vindictive bent view the consequent destruction of (their own) society as justice, and the remaining ignorant and apathetic characterize it as social progress or they simply shrug. Connecticut society as a whole will increasingly resemble that of its "inner" cities, and become less and less capable of self-government.
I recently spoke with a neighbor, and suggested that public sector unions shouldn't be able to push us around;I've rarely seen such an angry person. A State Rep to whom I pointed out that Medicaid expansion was financially inappropriate only acknowledged that Connecticut faces challenges. I'm actually a bit curious, and looking forward a to seeing Dannel Malloy (try to) explain himself next month.
------------
More than 108,000 Connecticut residents have enrolled in health care through the state health exchange, Access Health CT, since the new season of open enrollment began Nov. 15. Of those, 83,749 people had enrolled in Medicaid and 24,287 enrolled in private insurance.
--------
The biggest deficiency on the spending side is in the Medicaid account.
“A net Medicaid shortfall of $120 million is projected due to increased enrollment, difficulties in achieving the full savings levels incorporated in the budget for the medication administration and step therapy initiatives, additional hospital cost settlements, and revisions to the federal cost share for a small percentage of Medicaid clients who will be reimbursed at 50 percent as opposed to the originally anticipated 100 percent level,” Barnes wrote.
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/second_round_of_2015_budget_cuts_on_the_way/