Skip to main content

The Partisan Budget And Connecticut’s Destiny

Demography, it is said, is destiny. If so, the most current report from the U.S. Census should serve as a splash of cold water in the face of Connecticut legislators.

Marriage in Connecticut during the period surveyed, 2010-2014, has taken a massive hit. Experts say that young adults usually delay marriage because of the burdens of college debt, the high cost of rental housing and anemic salary growth. The high cost of rentals is a measure, in part, of the scarcity of rental housing; through budget mismanagement and a disinclination on the part of the dominant Democrats in the General Assembly to attack spending, Connecticut is still resting somnolently in the lap of a recession that disappeared years ago in the rest of the country; and UConn has just announced plans to boost tuition by thirty one percent.


According to a story in the Hartford Courant, “The number of never-married men in Connecticut jumped by 10.6 percent from 2010, and the number of never-married women jumped 9.3 percent. Nearly 37 percent of all males older than 15 in Connecticut have never married, up from 34.2 percent, the largest increase in the nation.”

An assistant professor of sociology at Quinnipiac University, Lauren Sardi, offered an additional reason for the spike: “People who are at the age now of being married may have come from a broken family, or grown up with divorced parents, and they’re just not interested in growing up and being a part of that.” Other variables account for Connecticut’s poor showing, according to Ms. Sardi: “It also has to do with fewer jobs for people without advanced degrees. People need to put career first before they can afford to get married and have kids. And Connecticut is very expensive, with very high taxes and not as many job opportunities.” If awards were given out to states with the most disappointing “first in the nation” scores, Connecticut’s trophy case would be full.  

Last week, Republicans in the General Assembly backed away from a joint Democrat-Republican meeting on the budget – the very first in Connecticut since Governor Dannel Malloy decided to bar Republicans from formal budget negotiations – because Democrats showed no interest in attacking recurring deficits by biting the bullet and accepting proposals that would reduce long-term spending. One need hardly mention that effective spending reduction proposals would not be looked upon favorably by the Democrat’s usual pampered special interests, principally state worker unions, Connecticut’s fourth branch of government. The ship of state appears to be heading at full speed towards the usual iceberg; this time Republicans have refused to accommodate their Democratic brothers and sisters in the General Assembly by shifting the chairs on deck so that no one aboard will see the approaching calamity. Republicans declined to vote in favor of the imposture.

Democrats in the General Assembly have hiked taxes and then reduced a portion of the hikes. They have moved a huge hunk of pension costs from the state budget cap, raising the roof on spending. Attorney General George Jepsen, once Chairman of the Democratic Party, has relieved spendthrift Democrats from laboring under the imagined constraint of the cap by ruling that Connecticut’s constitutional cap on spending has no legal force. The same General Assembly that instituted the cap as an inducement to legislators wavering on voting in favor of then Governor Lowell Wicker’s income tax neglected to supply necessary definitions that would have made the cap operative. In their abbreviated discussion with Democrats, Republicans insisted that the Democrat dominated legislature should in special session enact enabling legislation so the cap could be enforced. No dice said Democrats, new spending projects dancing devilishly in their eyes. The upcoming special spending session will not feature Mr. Malloy’s favored constitutional “lockbox” (read: plunderable slush fund) in which $100 billion was to be deposited over a thirty year period to pay for Mr. Malloy’s extravagant legacy transportation infrastructure program. The “lockbox,” very similar to the faux constitutional cap, fell short of the 114 votes on Tuesday to present the question to state voters next year.

Following summary rejection by leading Democrats of a Republican deficit mitigation amendment that included, in the words of no-nonsense Republican legislator Gail Lavielle, “a list of long-term structural reforms that would end the ongoing deficit cycle, reduce the tax pressure on people and businesses, and protect necessary services for the most vulnerable,” Ms. Lavielle correctly characterized the upcoming business-as-usual prospective Democratic bill: “Their bill, which is like putting a bucket under a leaky roof without fixing the roof, will pass in a bit. What a shame for Connecticut, and how disingenuous.”  

Bottom line: Connecticut is back to riotous spending and disingenuous deficit mitigation, nearly all the important locks on excessive spending having been removed by a one-party state that fiddles while everyone who has not fled Connecticut seeking prosperity elsewhere, with the possible exception of gimme-more unions, burns with barely suppressed indignation.      

Comments

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."

PCBs, GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH

By Gerald and Natalie Sirkin c2007 A front-page story on PCBs in the March 9 News-Times is just wrong. The first thing to know about PCBs is that they never killed a single person nor did they ever cause cancer. The second is that although they are invariably called “cancer-causing,” that designation comes chiefly from a single rat study. The third thing is that the subject rats were exposed daily for 21 months to 100 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs containing 60% chlorine. (The 100 ppm was about 5,000 times the tolerable daily intake of PCBs set by FDA in 1973.) When rats were exposed to PCBs containing less chlorine, they developed no cancers. The fourth, that when the exposed rats were allowed to live out their lives, they had fewer cancers and lived longer than the unexposed rats. PCBs is a family of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs contain chlorine ranging from 12% to 70%. They were used in two General Electric plants that manufactured electrical equipmen...

Taking The Fifth, After Esty

Whether or not U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty will serve the remainder of her term or resign immediately is very much an open question. But, in any case, the battle for Connecticut’s 5 th U.S. Congressional District has begun with a show of unexpected fireworks. For many years, the 5 th District was a toss-up proposition; both Republicans and Democrats have held and surrendered the seat. Geographically the 5 th District touches the border of New York from Connecticut’s northern-most point to Danbury in the southern quadrant and includes much of Litchfield county and parts of Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven counties. Party affiliation is competitive, in round figures, 30 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican and 45 percent unaffiliated. Over the years, the Democrat Party in Connecticut has moved from the center to the left, but the 5 th District has been a moderate preserve. During the Obama presidential election, Republican moderates within Connecticut's U.S. ...