Skip to main content

The Malloy-Bronin Real Deal



Governor Malloy’s man in Hartford, Mayor Luke Bronin, is close, we are told by a Hartford paper, “to signing a deal that would require the state to assume Hartford's annual debt payments.”

Malloy, who has proven himself more adept at deal making with his political cronies than balancing budgets and warding off debt, previously has made deals with state employee unions that carry debt forward much beyond his term in office. The SEBAC deal Malloy struck with lean and hungry union honchos, ratified by progressive Democrats in the General Assembly, push union favorable contracts forward to 2027 and prevent future governors from deploying layoffs to reduce debt until the contracts elapse. During his first two terms, Malloy has used the threat of layoffs to persuade hard boiled union negotiators to cough up what Malloy has been pleased to call “concessions,” an option the SEBAC-Malloy deal will not provide to Malloy’s successor. Union concessions generally have not involved long-term, permanent savings, which is why the state keeps stumbling from budget deficit to budget deficit.


Malloy’s deal with Bronin, who hopes to replace his padron as Connecticut’s next governor, is a sweet deal for Bronin, but not for Hartford. Bailouts will not break the cycle of spending and debt that hangs over the Capital City’s head like a Damoclean Sword.

A bankruptcy proceeding and a consequent reordering of financing by a bankruptcy court might have helped balance Hartford’s books in the future, because a court would have attacked head-on the causes of Hartford’s penury. But a bailout simply postpones the day of reckoning and, if Bronin is successful in his bid for governor, someone other than Bronin will fall victim to the pending Damoclean Sword. Just as Malloy will be leaving the problems he has failed to solve to his successor, so Bronin, after two years and a few months into a four year term as Mayor, will be deeding Hartford’s problems to his successor.

The terms of the Malloy-Bronin deal are what one might expect: The state – i.e. state taxpayers besieged by billion dollar increases in taxes during Malloy’s failed tenure as Governor, which has contributed to tax-payer flight – would cover Hartford’s immediate debt by June 20, ponying up $12 million. State taxpayers will surrender another $24 million to close Hartford’s budget deficit. In the future, state taxpayers will cover Hartford’s full debt payment – which, of course, will spur additional spending – and Hartford may receive an addition subsidy. Hartford already receives $270 million in extra aid from state taxpayers each year.

Every playboy living off his daddy’s wallet knows that financial “help” of this kind induces future uncontrolled spending. In a bankruptcy proceeding, debt and expenditures are both reduced. The fine print on the Malloy-Bronin deal promises non-political oversight. The Malloy-Bronin deal provides that an “oversight board” will restrict how Hartford will spend its money. “Budgets, contracts and other documents,” according to the Hartford paper, “must be run by the panel, and the board has final say over new labor agreements. Hartford can’t issue new debt without the group’s permission.”

So then, let us reason together. Hartford, like the state of Connecticut, has been overspending for decades, and it is largely future salaries and benefits that are driving debt. Salaries and benefits are set by chief administrators -- governors, mayors and town councils -- who concoct deals with union negotiators. State-Union deals may be rejected by the General Assembly, which is constitutionally authorized to appropriate money and disburse expenditures. But it has not often happened during negotiations between Malloy and SEBAC that a deal struck by Malloy and union chiefs has been rejected by the General Assembly. Far from rejecting deals that set in stone extravagant spending and ordering deals to be reconstructed so that spending may be brought under control, the Democrat dominated General Assembly has nodded sleepy assent to Malloy-SEBAC union favorable deals. Malloy is a progressive Democrat who has a warm spot in his heart for unions. Indeed, the Governor has expressed his solidarity with unions – which had contributed generously to his campaigns – by marching in strike lines with unions.

In fact, the Malloy-Bronin deal sets in concrete the present level of spending in Hartford and then uses this marker as a standard for future spending. The deal is a permit to continue a ruinous level of spending and a promise that spending excess, which is the cause of Hartford’s debt, will be assumed by state taxpayers.

Like his political patron Malloy, Bronin has not fallen far from the Malloy’s progressive tree. For those in Connecticut who mistakenly believe that Malloy’s stewardship of the state has led to uncontrollable bursts of economic activity, an influx of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial capital and a reduction of future debt, Bronin is a perfect gubernatorial choice to replace his political padroni, who has chosen to flee Connecticut’s burning house with his pants on fire.


Comments

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