Skip to main content

The Republican Alternative Budget


"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 migrationaccording 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

dmoelling said…
I just returned from a business/family visit to Michigan and noted a few items.

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.
peter brush said…
commitments should be adjusted to accommodate reality
----------------
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.
Don Pesci said…
PB -- Very astute. Some hints thrown out by Looney suggest Democrats may incorporate into their budget only those Republican ideas that advance their interests -- none of which involve spending restraints -- and then declare a bipartisan budget has been adopted. From now until then, Republicans have to learn how to grapple.
Don Pesci said…
DM -- I haven't worked out how many in-migrants from other states pouring into North and South Carolina might be Connecticut residents fleeing the fleecing. Pretty high I would guess. Two of them are my brother and his son, married families that might have stayed here. All my young nieces and nephews on my mother's side of the family are gone -- along with their families, some to Arizona, some to Virginia. I expect all that will continue. If fact, it IS continuing. Someone should tote up the possible revenue dollars lost, especially among young ex-pats. I'm willing to bet it would pay for our deficit a few times over.
peter brush said…
married families that might have stayed here
-----------------
“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]

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