"We cannot continue to put the Band-Aid on
the problem and hope when we go to bed at night that next year will be any
different. Next year is not different unless we make it different
this year." So said House Minority Leader Themis Klarides as state
Republicans launched their "Roadmap to Prosperity" alternative
budget.
Immediate reactions from leading Democrats in Connecticut’s
General Assembly have not been obdurately dismissive.
As a general rule, Democrats prefer long term spending
measures and short term spending cuts, the shorter the better. Republicans
prefer – or should prefer – exactly the opposite: long terms spending cuts and
short term revenue increases, only when they are necessary. The Republican budget
is a vast improvement over Governor Dannel Malloy’s defective budget, a step in
the right (pun intended) direction.
To judge from its reception among serious Democrats, those
who have handled budgets in the past, it’s a serious approach to Connecticut’s
chronic malaise. Speaker of the House Brendan Sharkey thanked Republicans and
said “This is an extremely challenging budget year, and Republicans deserve credit for
sharing their ideas instead of simply sniping from the sidelines.”
The usual Democratic props have, as expected, turned their
thumbs down on prosperity. Whether Democratic legislators will treat Republican
ideas seriously will be determined almost entirely by political rather than
economic considerations. There were no Republican fingerprints on any of
Governor Dannel Malloy’s budgets. The first Democratic governor in nearly a
quarter century shooed Republicans from the room during his first budget, and the
opposition party, rarely fierce in opposition, were loftily ignored in
subsequent budgets. This time around may be different.
The state has reached a crisis point. There are, believe it
or not, Democrats in the General Assembly who have come to realize that the old
bromides don’t work anymore. Ideas have consequences, and so do budgets that rest
precariously on faulty ideas. These consequences have now come in front of the
curtain and taken their bows.
Connecticut’s job production, suffering under massive tax
hikes, has been abysmally low ever since Governor Lowell Weicker graced the
state with his income tax. Here’s an idea: Whatever you tax tends to disappear.
Many of the state’s revenue producers have either fled the state or are operating
on one cylinder. If one thinks crudely of people and businesses as revenue
banks, the flight of young entrepreneurial talent to other higher performing
states becomes alarming. And none of this is hidden from public view. When
people sit down to a Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner, they are able to count
the number of young people who have drifted in from other states. In the last four years, Connecticut has lost a net of 76,000 people to domestic migration, according to a report in CTMirror. They know
Connecticut is leaking revenue producers. True, they are not insensible to the
usual political soft sells; but ultimately nutmeggers will be convinced by events,
not political prattle. They don’t need graphs and statistics and editorials and
political commentary and easily ignored warnings from the Cassandras among us
to convince them that SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG.
There is a sense in Connecticut that events are in the
saddle riding men. Jobs are not being
produced; in many cases, they are disappearing everywhere but in the swollen tributaries
of state government. Companies need entrepreneurial capital
to produce jobs; this seed capital is drawn off by punishing taxation. Here's an
idea: Connecticut has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and consequently
the answer to the state’s malingering malaise is to cut spending – to adopt
long term, permanent spending cuts. To offer one example among many: Mr. Malloy’s
transportation repair kit – a thirty year, $100 billion project – ties the
hands of governors and legislators thirty years out; it moves dollars into a
spending lockbox precisely at a time when spending has produced a brood of serious, intractable problems, most
of which can be traced to political timidity.
A wiser course might be to require the legislature to review
all “committed spending,” widely regarded as untouchable, every fiscal year for
the next thirty years, on the understanding that commitments should
be adjusted to accommodate reality. To be sure, Republicans do not make
such suggestions in their current alternative budget. Had they done so, Mr. Sharkey
might not have been quite so liberal with his complements. But at some point –
the time is now -- the Democratic dominated legislature and the Democratic governor
must seriously attack spending.
And attacking spending is a politically punishing business,
which is why most politicians avoid it whenever possible. The Republican
alternative budget, while attentive to real needs, trims spending modestly.
Even so, the trimming has set off alarm bells among the usual culprits,
swooning union leaders and Connecticut’s leftist chorale. Executive director of
the Connecticut Citizen Action Group Tom Swan is said to be recovering from a
nasty fall incurred when he first glanced at the GOP alternative budget, but smelling salts revived Mr. Swan,
whose recent attention has been focused
on persuading progressive Democratic legislators to mark up a bill that would
force Walmart to offer a living wage to its workers. Jonathan Pelto, Mr. Malloy’s
bete noir, is thought to be preparing
a devastating response to the Republican Party’s War on indigent and oppressed teachers.
Even while submitting his out of balance budget to the
General Assembly, Mr. Malloy airily dismissed it. His budget, Mr. Malloy said,
was balanced – not true – and the General Assembly would do with it whatever it
wished. Democratic leaders have said some Republican ideas have been
incorporated into their own budget. Soon we will know how many Republican spending cut proposals have been incorporated in the Democratic budget plan. When the General Assembly has finished its
revisions, the budget will be returned to Mr. Malloy’s desk for further emendation
before receiving his final stamp of approval.
Comments
1) Ads on local radio by mid-sized banks soliciting loans to manufacturers/farmers.
2)A Hartford Sized city (Grand Rapids) transformed into a growing town with a downtown any city would envy.
3) Conversations on the Detroit-BDL flight with CT residents formerly from Michigan complaining about high CT costs and grumpy CT citizenry.
Now MI has not been the continuous growth story SC and Texas have been, but it has been growing since the GOP legislature and now Governor Snyder have put in some common sense changes. Remember Governor Granholm was a progressives dream but the Michigan economy was awful.
----------------
Lord knows I don't have a firm grasp of Connecticut's budget history or procedure, and I haven't even read many press accounts of the Republican budget, but I am heartened by their proposal. True, the Party of Thaddeus Stevens, Theodore Roosevelt, Nelson Rockefeller, and Lowell Maverick Weicker doesn't at this point consider elimination or scaling back of the Nutmeg social welfare state apparatus. As you suggest, such is perceived to be politically impractical. In fact, the GOP restores "cuts" made in Mal-loy's phony budget, a move which may be politically astute in Nutmegistan 2015. What it does that is heartening is to derive "savings" from government employees by freezing pay and reforming pensions. Those of us Joe Six-packs out here may be (although I personally doubt the political calculus) really keen on expanding Medicaid, further "investments" in government mis-education, and maintaining the liberal plantations of Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport, but we don't have a lot of sympathy for the travails of the public sector unions.
If nothing else, it seems to me that the Republicans will have made it more difficult for the Dems to simply raise taxes to pay for the stuff their clientele wants, and they have leveraged their minority position into greater short term legislative input and long term credibility. Their budget proposal is "refreshing" because it actually takes Reality into account. Even the Dems are getting tired of governing with lies.
I've never been to Grand Rapids. The weather is probably not worse than Hartford's. It's ethno-racial makeup however, suggests to me that it's a more "liveable" city not primarily because of Republican policies in Lansing. When Detroit improves, now that will be worth those of us in the New English ghetto taking note.
-----------------
“The main thing we wanted to do was support the families of the state of Connecticut,” said Rep. Toni Walker, D-New Haven, House chair of the panel. “...Our budget is what we believe the State of Connecticut needed.”
-----------------
The District of Columbia and Mississippi had the highest rates of out-of-wedlock births in 2007: 59 percent and 54 percent, respectively. The lowest rate, 20 percent, was in Utah. In New York, the rate was 41 percent; in New Jersey, 34 percent; and in Connecticut, 35 percent.
------------------------
The state enacted a civil union law in 2005 that provided same-sex couples with the same rights and responsibilities under state law as marriage. Connecticut became the second state in the United States, following Vermont, to adopt civil unions, and the first to do so without judicial intervention. The bill was passed by the House on April 13 and by the Senate on April 20. Governor Jodi Rell signed the bill into law later the same day, and it went into effect on October 1, 2005.[18]
Following the Supreme Court of Connecticut's October 2008 ruling that found civil unions failed to provide same-sex couples with the rights and responsibilities of marriage, all existing civil unions were automatically transformed into marriages on October 1, 2010.[7]