Skip to main content

Looney’s Way

Looney


Martin Looney, for six years the President Pro Tem of Connecticut’s State Senate, has made in the pages of CTMirror the strongest and least convincing case in favor of a new state property tax.

The state needs a new tax because it has, like Mr. Micawber of Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield, spent more money than it has taken in. Any half-literate state senator will be familiar with Micawber’s recipe for penury and prosperity: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

The state of Connecticut, prone to debt, is not a person. The state can always rely on its productive citizens to bail out improvident legislators – through taxation.

Its citizens, finding themselves in the Coronavirus era with diminished resources, cannot rely upon the state to trim its spending sufficiently to reduce its debt load. Micawber, chronically in debt, found himself in a similar pickle and ended up in debtors’ prison, as did Dickens’ father. When Charles Dickens was 12 years old, his father, John, served some time in Marshalsea Prison for having incurred a debt of 40 pounds and 10 shillings, about $5,906 in today’s inflated currency.

Debtors’ prisons, with a few  minor exceptions – dead-beat dads may still face prison if they do not abide by court ordered payment schedules – have been consigned to the ashbin of history. If this were not the case, some improvident legislators might be consigned to the modern equivalent of Marshalsea Prison, and the Devil take the hindmost. For some unaccountable reason, Micawber’s rule of personal responsibility does not apply equally to those who govern and the governed. While the governed, especially in hard times, watches its pennies like a pinch-penny accountant, some prodigal legislators, throwing caution to the wind, tend to spend other people’s money like drunken sailors. Looney, a progressive spendthrift, is one of these.

Perhaps in order to satisfy his own progressive constituency, Looney has now put forward his property tax scheme. Naturally, only the rich will pay the tax – for the time being.

The very first income tax, signed into law by President Abe Lincoln to pay off the Civil War debt, was a temporary tax levied on the millionaires of Lincoln’s day. Progressives, who do not believe in “trickledown” theories of wealth production, according to which lower level workers share in the prosperity of wealth producers through product improvement and job production – a rising economic tide, said President of Camelot John Kennedy, lifts ALL the boats – do not believe in the trickledown theory of progressive taxation. That is because they have not studied the historic progress of the income tax, which has now trickled down from Lincoln’s temporary tax on the super wealthy of his day to middle class workers. Wage taxation now consumes about 25-30 percent of a middle class worker’s net pay, and the Civil War ended in 1865.

Looney’s solution to debt – always raise taxes, never offer permanent long-term spending cuts – impoverishes only productive taxpayers, who have been reeling under the weight of trickle down progressive taxation since 1991, the year Maverick Governor Lowell Weicker forced an income tax through a brutalized legislature. Since 1991, spending in the state has increased threefold. The last non-income tax balanced budget in Connecticut was $7.5 billion. The present barely balanced budget is three times larger.

The Weicker income tax, once flat, has been progressivized three times – in 2009, 2011 and 2015. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the Yankee Institute has reported, a significant proportion of high income earners have exited the state, resulting in “a net loss to Connecticut of more than $12 billion in adjusted gross income between 2012 and 2018 due to outmigration; 64 percent of that  loss came from those earning over $200,000 per year.”

Soon a load of Trump dollars will be released to Connecticut. CTMirror has given us a picture of the coming political scrum. It will be like witnessing a load of dolphins released into a Great White Shark tank.

The sniff of federal dollars has re-awaked Looney’s primeval constitutional obligations – this after nearly a year of revenue reducing autocratic governance by Ned Lamont, during the course of which Looney’s state Senate went into deep, historic hibernation. Ruling Democrats have extended Lamont’s extraordinary emergency powers, due to elapse on February 9, forward to April 20, with the understanding, Looney has said, that “The legislative branch will continue to exercise its constitutional and statutory authority to appropriate any and all funds distributed to the state of Connecticut where federal law allows for such discretion.”

One wonders whether any of the incoming funds will indirectly offset payments to depleted slush funds such as the state pension “lockbox”, pilfered for 30 years and more by Looney’s Democrat majority in the General Assembly to pay for  its improvident spending. One needn’t wonder at all whether the incoming federal funds will spur Looney and others to reform the General Assembly’s spending habits.

They won’t. Once a shark, always a shark.

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."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p