 |
| Looney, Lamont, Duff and Ritter |
It’s been 16 months since this writer first noted that Governor Ned Lamont’s most obstreperous political opposition in Connecticut would come from progressive Democrats, not Republicans: “During his first term in office, Governor Ned Lamont need have no fear of the Republican Party, which was thoroughly thrashed by Democrats in the recently concluded elections.”
Under an ominous title, “Potential budget showdown over tax hikes,”
a Hartford paper notes – better late than never – “Democrats in the General
Assembly are pressing ahead with plans for raising taxes on the state’s
wealthiest residents, despite Lamont’s opposition to the idea, setting up a
potential budget clash with the governor.”
We are advised that closed-door budget talks have begun as
lawmakers race toward the legislative session’s June 9 adjournment.” A “closed
door budget talk” has been, since the administration of former Governor Dannel
Malloy, one to which minority Republicans have been disinvited. Bad political
habits are tough to break.
A soak the rich tax package, supported by progressive
Democrats and two important gatekeepers in the State General Assembly, House
Speaker Matt Ritter and President of the Senate Martin Looney, has passed a
progressive legislative finance committee that would “increase taxes on capital
gains by 2 percentage points for high-income earners and create a new
consumption tax on the rich.”
These new taxes, unnecessary according to Lamont, are something that we’ve pushed for three years, said Ritter, adding, “It is really soft income that people did not have to work for. My caucus is probably most unified on the capital gains issue.” The implication in Ritter’s remark is that “soft money” may be appropriated by the state without adverse consequences because those earning it did not have to work for it. Ritter should be asked whether he regards the taxing authority as inconsequential because the tax collector did not have to work to acquire his earnings.
By way of opposition, Lamont reminds progressive Democrats
that the state budget is larded with a $4 billion rainy day fund, a stockpile
that in large measure is the result of funds flowing into state coffers from so
called millionaires whose entrepreneurial cash progressive Democrats wish to
appropriate because, in Ritter’s words, it is “soft income that people did not
have to work for,” somewhat like a penny one finds on the street.
Lamont’s opposition is plainly stated. The state’s
surplus he said, “is a reminder of … how
much money we have to put to work, why I believe we don’t need any new taxes or
tax increases.”
What Lamont did not say is this: There is not a farmer in
the state or nation who does not lay aside seed for the following year’s
planting. If prospects for a rich future harvest are expropriated by the
governing authority, starvation will fill the mouths of all people, rich and
poor, in the year to come. Even Joseph Stalin, far gone in zany socialist
economic experimentation, was well aware of the principle involved – which is
why he was able to bring Ukraine under his hobnailed boots during his
artificial, politically caused famine, which resulted in the deaths of 8-10 million
Ukrainians.
Ritter either does not know, or is pretending not to know,
that soft investment money is in Connecticut and much of the nation the indispensible
financing engine that drives prosperity. As “soft money” investment in
Connecticut disappears -- scooped up unnecessarily by greedy progressive
Democrats in the state’s General Assembly – the state’s treasury, now bursting
with a “soft money” driven surplus -- will be depleted, and prosperity
producers in Connecticut will flee the state. Indeed, they are already fleeing
Connecticut.
President of the Senate Martin Looney, puts it this way:
“We’re interested in pushing the principle of progressive taxation and
progressive revenue structure to whatever extent we possibly can,” to which Speaker
of the House Matthew Ritter added an enthusiastic assent: “The capital gains
[tax] is something we’ve pushed for three years. We believe that a 1 percent on
capital gains would be a fair way to bring revenue in and it is really soft
income that people don’t have to work for.”
How does Looney plan to handle Lamont’s soft opposition? The
state, after all, is sucking in a massive surplus; its reserve fund is maxed
out; state employee unions already have been paid off; and President Joe Biden
is shoveling relief and infrastructure repair funds -- only a portion of which
will be used for infrastructure repair and Coronavirus relief -- to states like
Connecticut that boast large budget surpluses.
Said Looney, the basis for budget negotiation is “our
budget, not the governor’s.” And by “our budget” Looney doubtless refers to
decision makers minus minority Republicans, moderate Democrats, taxpayers
already preparing to shake the dust of Connecticut from their feet, the general
public, and a handful of opinion writers
who, too late as usual, are beginning to catch on to Looney’s game. Strike
while the iron is hot. While Democrats are in the majority, go for broke.
Whatever the real world consequences, push the progressive pedal to the metal.
Crises like Coronavirus come rarely, and such crises must not be permitted to
go to waste.
Comments