Some may notice that a new expression, “modernize” and its
variants, has made its way into Democrat oratory. Lamont said of his massive
sales tax increases, “Look, we’re gonna try and modernize our sales tax
structure… In fact, wanna know why sales tax revenues are already up compared
to what we had expected” That’s cause of sales tax applying to e-commerce.”
Lamont is a graduate of high-priced colleges. So what’s all
this business about “gonna” and “wanna”? Do Harvard and Yale lack speech
teachers? The use of the word “modernize” is gonna become an Orwellian catch
phrase for “increasing and broadening sales taxes.” This expression may have
been hammered out by the smithies hired by Lamont to make his policy
prescriptions palatable to the voting public. The Orwellianism may have come
from former Malloy campaign coach Roy Occhiogrosso, the Vice
President of Global Strategies. Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad
consequences.
There is nothing “modern” about tax increases in
Connecticut. The state has done little else but raise taxes to discharge its
repetitive budget deficits. There is no indication so far that this destructive
process – raise revenue, spend revenue, incur deficits, raise revenue again –
will not continue at an accelerated pace in the Lamont administration. Lamont’s
apple did not fall far from Weicker’s tree. Weicker raised taxes; Malloy raised
taxes – twice, cumulatively the largest tax increase of any administration in
state history; Lamont has now raised taxes, though he boasts that he has not
raised the income tax. In all three instances, tax increases have led to
spending increases, which have led to budget deficits, which have led to
further tax increases. Cui bono? Who benefits by his process? Surely not
taxpayers.
The number one beneficiary is cowardly politicians, because
increasing taxes is the least painless way leading to reelection. Spending cuts
produce an adverse reaction among those groups, most prominently public
employee unions, Democrats depend upon to retain their seats.
Assuming there is anyone left in Connecticut who might
recognize real reform if it bit them on the cheek, what might a real reform
look like?
Commentator Chris Powell noted some time ago that
Connecticut is suffering chiefly from political problems most easily solved by
politicians.
The General Assembly has lost control of its budgets, owing
mostly to what are called “fixed costs.” Fixed costs are governmental costs that
members of Connecticut’s General Assembly refuse to address in biennial
budgets, a cost that must be paid on a regular basis and cannot be adjusted
through usual legislative means – by, for example, cutting the cost.
Fixed costs comprise an over-large portion of Connecticut’s
budgets. Here are some eye-popping figures taken from the Connecticut School Finance Project: “Connecticut's fixed costs have risen from 35 percent of General
Fund expenditures in fiscal year 2000 to 49 percent of General Fund
expenditures in fiscal year 2018, an increase of 14 percentage points.
Additionally, fixed costs have risen in terms of total dollars, from $5.17 billion
in fiscal year 2000 to $9.15 billion in fiscal year 2018. This is a 77 percent
increase in the whole-dollar amount of fixed costs.” The Connecticut General
Assembly has surrendered control of half of its budget to auto-pilot, a “77
percent increase in the whole-dollar amount of fixed costs” since 2000,
according to figures supplied by Connecticut’s Office of Policy and
Management and
the General Assembly’s
Office of Fiscal Analysis.
Now, it is true that little can be done to change the past,
which is fixed. But, going forward, these conditions can be adjusted. Told that
nothing could be done concerning fixed costs, Powell responded, “Well, unfix
them.” Zero based budgeting would nudge legislators toward real reform.
The General Assembly must regain control of its future
budgets. It does not help when the legislature pensions off its own
constitutional obligations to unelected bodies that decide money issues, such
as union management arbitrators or, most recently, a “transportation
commission” tasked with deciding toll rates in the future, assuming tolling has
a future.
In the future, all contracts involving dollars paid out by
the state should be decided by the General Assembly alone; no more negotiations
with unions. Never again should a single dollar be appropriated or
expended by the General Assembly without a recorded vote in the legislature; no
more voice votes on any measure that involves getting and spending. These are
real back-to-Bach reforms that will re-constitutionalize state government and
reestablish the vital connection between legislative measures and the small
"d" democratic will of the people. Under a regimen of this kind, it
would not be possible for the General Assembly to assign its own constitutional
powers to unelected commissions, the devil in the details of tolling.
There are lots of screaming, bellicose devils in tolling proposals yet
to be exorcised.
Comments