Skip to main content

Tax Cuts, Tax Credits And Public Virtue


As the New Year’s Eve midnight clock passed 12:00, Connecticut and the nation entered election year 2022. How does one know one has entered an election year?

“With [Governor Ned] Lamont and the entire legislature up for reelection in November,” a Hartford paper tells us, “the race is on to see which taxes may be cut this year.” Voters tend to respond favorably to tax cuts. The title of the story emblazoned on the paper’s front page read, “State legislators weighing tax cuts.”

“Weighing” is the operative word. Then too, there are important differences between tax cuts and tax credits. A practical discussion implies legislative cordiality and bipartisan agreement. None of the discussions have yet been written in stone.

House Republican leader Vincent Candelora warned that the Republican plan may not be embraced by “liberal Democrats.” However, the very presence of an upcoming election, he noted, “does change people’s behavior.” Candelora and the Republicans, at this early stage in the discussion, want to restore Connecticut’s property tax credit to its previous maximum of $500.

The credit not too long ago had been reduced to a maximum of $200, and cutbacks in eligibility had been engineered to “save money for the state,” Democrat leaders said. Following the progressive change, only senior citizens and those with dependents were eligible for the credit. “Previously, any residential property owner, subject to income limits,” according to the Harford paper, “could claim a dollar for dollar credit for taxes that they paid on their home or car.” The Republican plan would restore the tax credit as it had existed before all the legislative finagling, largely by Democrats bowing to progressive revisionism.

Pleas from Republicans that “the state could cut taxes only until the end of 2022, and then revisit the idea again in 2023” depending upon whether or not the economy improves, have  found favor with House Speaker Matt Ritter. A cut in the state sales tax from 6.35% to 5.99%, starting in February and lasting only through the end of the year, prompted a compliment from Ritter: “I have to give them [Republicans] credit. I thought that [temporary tax credits] was a very interesting concept.”

Actually, temporary tax credits have been standard fare among progressive Connecticut Democrats who favor permanent spending increases, long-term tax increases and easily revocable tax credits that may be effortlessly adjusted up or down. Real long-term tax cuts and real long-term spending increases bear this in common: neither is painlessly adjusted, both require legislators to vote a tax increase or decrease up or down, and both serve different and contradictory purposes.

Republicans traditionally favor reliable, long term tax cuts because past practice has shown marginal tax cuts increase creative industrial productivity. Real long-term tax cuts also boost revenues, state and federal. To put the matter in terms liberal President John F. Kennedy often used, the consequent “rising [economic] tide” occasioned by increased business activity, a by-product of reductions in marginal taxation, “lifts all the boats,” including state revenue infrequently used by progressives to aid the poor.

Progressive Democrats, on the other hand, favor punishing taxes applied to millionaires, and rely upon “fair share” taxes, rarely defined, to pay for often improvident spending, while loftily overlooking mounting state debt. Connecticut’s state debt, among the highest in the nation, presently is cresting at $57 billion.

Democrats this election season will be relying on temporary funding to finance their newest and most expensive spending spree. The federal handouts of the Biden administration are themselves temporary. The Connecticut tax credits mentioned above are likewise temporary. And we all know what happens when temporary revenue enhancements collide with permanent spending increases. Debt piles up and, as fixed costs rise and debt is whittled down, it becomes less and less possible to cope. Conservative Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher once asked socialists in Great Britain what they planned to do once they had “run out of other people’s money.” Having equitized and flat lined wages and assets in the general population, they resort, as all tyrants do, to obvious lies and persuasive naked force.

In countries in which politicians place the common good above their own private good, tyranny will find no foothold. The public virtue celebrated by John Adams – “Our Constitution was made for virtuous people, and no others” – is our surety against force and subversive lies.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Murphy Thingy

It’s the New York Post, and so there are pictures. One shows Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy canoodling with “Courier Newsroom publisher Tara McGowan, 39, last Monday by the bar at the Red Hen, located just one mile north of Capitol Hill.”   The canoodle occurred one day or night prior to Murphy’s well-advertised absence from President Donald Trump’s recent Joint Address to Congress.   Murphy has said attendance at what was essentially a “campaign rally” involving the whole U.S. Congress – though Democrat congresspersons signaled their displeasure at the event by stonily sitting on their hands during the applause lines – was inconsistent with his dignity as a significant part of the permanent opposition to Trump.   Reaching for his moral Glock Murphy recently told the Hartford Courant that Democrat Party opposition to President Donald Trump should be unrelenting and unforgiving: “I think people won’t trust you if you run a campaign saying that if Donald Trump is ...

The PURA soap opera continues in Connecticut: Business eyeing the exit signs

The trouble at PURA and the two energy companies it oversees began – ages ago, it now seems – with the elevation of Marissa Gillett to the chairpersonship of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulation Authority.   Connecticut Commentary has previously weighed in on the controversy: PURA Pulls The Plug on November 20, 2019; The High Cost of Energy, Three Strikes and You’re Out? on December 21, 2024; PURA Head Butts the Economic Marketplace on January 3, 2025; Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA on February 3, 2025; and Lamont’s Pillow Talk on February 22, 2025:   The melodrama full of pratfalls continues to unfold awkwardly.   It should come as no surprise that Gillett has changed the nature and practice of the state agency. She has targeted two of Connecticut’s energy facilitators – Eversource and Avangrid -- as having in the past overcharged the state for services rendered. Thanks to the Democrat controlled General Assembly, Connecticut is no l...

Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA

Marissa P. Gillett, the state's chief utility regulator, watches Gov. Ned Lamont field questions about a new approach to regulation in April 2023. Credit: MARK PAZNIOKAS / CTMIRROR.ORG Concerning a suit brought by Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s energy delivery agents, against Connecticut’s Public Utility Regulatory Agency (PURA), Governor Ned Lamont surprised most of the state’s political watchers by affecting surprise.   “Look,” Lamont told a Hartford Courant reporter shortly after the suit was filed, “I think it is incredibly unhelpful,” Lamont said. “Everyone is getting mad at the umpires.   Eversource is not getting everything they want and they are bringing suit. It was a surprise to me. Nobody notified me. I think we have to do a better job of working together.”   Lamont’s claim is far less plausible than the legal claim made by Eversource and Avangrid. The contretemps between Connecticut’s energy distributors and Marissa Gillett , Gov. Ned Lamont’s ...