Skip to main content

The Progressive Connection, Malloy and His General Assembly


Legislators – and, of course, Governor Dannel Malloy – are staring down the barrels of a double gauge biennial deficit: $1.3 billion in 2015-16, and $1.4 billion in 2016-17. Mr. Malloy’s current budget increases the revenue stream by about $900 million through the usual means: the elimination of exemptions, borrowing and increasing entrepreneurial taxes.

A flawed spending cap nudges legislators in the direction of spending cuts, never popular among big-spending progressives, or, more likely, tax increases, which are increasingly unpopular among flat-lining taxpayers; those who consume taxes, the permanent government, naturally are not averse to tax increases. It’s easy to give candy to a baby, difficult to snatch it away.

The Malloy administration now finds itself crushed between a rock, potential spending cuts, and a hard place, potential tax increases.

The same crush in 1991 led to an income tax, the second highest tax increase in state history. Mounting deficits in 2011 led inexorably to the highest tax increase in Connecticut history in the first year of the Malloy administration. The usual progressive template favors long term spending – Mr. Malloy’s $100 billion, thirty year infrastructure repair program, for instance – particularly spending proposals that bind succeeding governors to long-term irreversible spending programs, and short-term savings that easily can be overridden by either Mr. Malloy or his progressive successors. The idea is to lock in spending for long stretches of time while leaving big spending progressives free to reverse any measures that may deplete revenue. From the progressives point of view, the more spending that can be moved from the touchable to the untouchable column on the budget ledger the better.

Everyone, especially editorial writers and commentators who have been in business for the past few decades, knows the score and is familiar with how the game is played. In a one party state, the game moves smoothly through the innings and the end is foreordained: Taxes increase, spending increases, and all the right people -- i.e. all the left people -- are satisfied.

This year, Mr. Malloy left on the doorstep of the General Assembly a budget that was out of balance, according to the calculations of number crunchers in his own Administration, all Democrats. The cuts Mr. Malloy managed to make lashed the backs of the poorest of the poor and the neediest of the needy. And these cuts have occasioned political speculation among politicians in both parties and what might be called the progressive wing among Connecticut commentators. After delivering his out-of-balance budget to majority leaders in the state Democratic dominated General Assembly, Connecticut’s banged governor -- “Here I sit,” Mr. Malloy agonized, “I get banged up because we’re not making cuts. I get banged up because we’re not raising taxes. I get banged up because we’re raising taxes. I understand, it’s the job I ran for” -- took off for a richly deserved vacation in Puerto Rico, certain that Democratic leaders in the General Assembly would be able to straighten out the bends in his crooked budget without self-destructing.

Here is what Democratic progressives in the General Assembly are discussing among themselves: Dare we disturb the universe? Dare we, once again, raise taxes? And if we resort to tax increases, possibly the last straw that may break the backs of Connecticut’s overburdened, much regulated Middle Class taxpayers, will the governor veto our tax increases – AS HE SUGGESTED HE MIGHT when he ruled out tax increases during his reelection campaign? Is the governor’s laconic response to reporters who inconveniently pointed out that his submitted budget was out of balance by about $100 million – “We’ve gotten it off my desk. It’s now up to the legislature” – an indication that Mr. Malloy is serious, during his second round as governor, in cutting expenses, thereby  opening the door to future prosperity and relieving future generations of the debt burdens we have passed along to them in a future blasted by our inability to do the right thing for posterity?

There is so little unequivocal meaning in what has been said regarding budgets thus far that no one may safely say tax increases are off the table. Mr. Malloy has said both and at the same time, “We’re not calling for raising new taxes or rates,” and “It’s now up to the legislature.”

Consulting history – no state in the union, deeply in debt, has ever spent its way to solvency – as well as recent Connecticut history – we have taxed the patience and resources of taxpayers by two massive tax levies – it does not take a priestess of the oracle of Delphi to read the signs of the times and conclude that more crippling tax increases may be in the offing, which will lead to more debt, more political posturing and a further delay in the state’s recovery from a protracted recession brought about by cowardly political decisions made by cowardly politicians. 


Comments

peter brush said…
I'm inclined to like Rep.Klarides. I don't know what more, at this point, she and the Republicans can say beyond what they have. As are the national guys, our Republicans are stuck with an irresponsible and mendacious Executive. And, unlike the nationals, our guys are in the minority in both houses of the legislature. Would that the Republicans (McKinney, but especially Foley) had been more courageous in identifying Malloy and his Party for what they are. I certainly wouldn't complain if Klarides and Associates were to decline involvement in the present budgetary proceedings. They aren't necessarily afforded much involvement anyway. Let them explain how Malloy's operation is the unaffordable culmination of decades of Dem social engineering, outline an alternative budget, and describe how liberal programs are to be repaired, reformed, and/or eliminated in the longer run.
-------------
“The Governor delivered a wreck of a budget that included hundreds of millions in higher taxes and violates the spending cap and then says to the legislature ‘you fix it,’” Klarides said. “Meanwhile, in national publications he called me and my fellow Republicans ‘frauds’ and tells Time Magazine that, as a Democrat, he has had to clean up Republican messes.”

“Disingenuous doesn’t cover it,” she added.

Klarides said Gov. Malloy spent a good part of the last four years traveling the country raising money for Democrats and now is poised to spend the next four engaging in non-stop partisan attacks on Republicans. “I thought the Governor was elected to governor for everyone,’’ she said. “At some point he should stop the campaign rhetoric and govern.”

Popular posts from this blog

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."

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.

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...