Malloy Starts With a Candid Budget.
Many will disagree with the policy decisions Governor Dannel P. Malloy makes in the $40 billion biannual budget he unveiled in full today. He deserve full marks for banishing the gimmicks and fantasy that were the hallmarks of the budgets resented and enacted by his predecessor, Republican M. Jodi Rell, and the Democratic legislature.
Malloy’s budget appears to be based on reality, which is a road that has not been taken by a governor in at least 4 years. He is not seeking to defer contributions to the state’s groaning pension fund. He disdains borrowing for ongoing expenses. He did not minimize the difficult choices the state faces. That’s not to say he made the right choices, but he at least recognized them as he raced through the unpleasant parts in the early going of his address. He then delivered his Valentine to government. A $40 billion budget that eliminates a piddling 150 jobs is, regretfully, the road taken many times before. He is, however, talking tougher to state employees than either of his Republican predecessors did. Keep in mind that Malloy’s ability to negotiate is badly hampered by former Governor John G. Rowland’s disastrous 20 year benefits deal with state employees.
The numbers seem honest, even if he gets to them in a way that punishes working men and women. Start with these assumptions: the historic tax increases Malloy proposes are the floor on the revenue side of the budget. There will not be enough votes to reduce the hefty increases he’s proposed. The legislature’s instinct will be to enact more tax increases and go lighter on the spending changes. They will be especially wary of the $1 billion in concession from state employee unions.
This is what the future looks like in the budget tussle ahead: tax increases are the floor, spending cuts the ceiling. Hold on as Democrats in the legislature lift the floor and lower the ceiling.
8 comments
I thought the 2011-12 deficit was 3.5 billion?? The tax increases are 1.5 billion and the Unions are asked to give back 1.0 billion, where’s the other 1 billion???
Your buddy Dan Haar thinks the union concession number is unattainable. This is looking like 2007 or 2009 all over again, we will enact a “balanced” budget that collapses upon impact with economic reality.
Even if they get the union concessions it is 2009 all over again. The kind of concessions that Malloy is talking about are a short term, maybe two year, fix. Then, come 2013, we have another billion dollar hole in the budget.
Of course, given the fact there were no cuts to school aid (CEA), or nursing homes (SEIU 1199), some folks in the SEBAC unions are wondering why they’re Malloy’s chumps?
No one is being “punished” by the Malloy budget. We are being asked, finally, to pay the full costs of the state and local governement we seem to want in this state. Rest assured, the flat funding of ECS will lead to massive layoffs of teachers and other municipal and board of education employees all over the state. You people who want public employees to lose jobs will get your wish. I will gladly pay the extra .25% on the sales tax, another 3 cents for a six pack of beer and 3 cents for a gallon of gas to avoid the results of another $1.5 billion in cuts. How many community colleges should we close? How many state troopers should we lay off? How many nursing homes can we do without?
Bob doesn’t think $3.49/ gallon is high enough? On that point, why doesn’t Malloy bring back tolls? I pay NY, NJ & MA to use their highways; we just give use of our roads away. Or is it nobler to gouge one’s own citizens?
I am in favor of gateway tolls. I understand, however, that FTA may be owed some large amount of federal highway money back if we reinstitute the tolls. I would trade gas tax for tolls, but I am not in favor of raiding the transportation trust fund to balance the operating budget, which has been going on for years. Give us an honest, no b.s. budget. If enough people don’t like it, let them throw the bums out in the next election. The problem over the past five years has been in hiding the true cost of government through one time revenues and not funding long term liabilities. If the people of Connecticut don’t want tax increases, they can do something about that in the next state election. I don’t think they will. For all our grousing, we like the level of state and local government we have. It is politically easier in Connecticut to raise taxes than it is to cut services. My theories may well be tested over the course of the next few months.
Bob, “no one is being ‘punished?'” Really?
I work in the Information Technology field. Four years ago I took a $20K paycut to take a job in the public sector working for one of the state’s quasi-public agencies. What attracted me, as a person starting a family, was the relative security and benefits offered by the state.
Even though the agency I work for is non-unionized and makes its own money (my salary doesn’t come out of the state’s general fund) I’m still beholden to whatever deals the unions strike with the state.
So, in the four short years I’ve worked for the state, raises were skipped TWICE, a 3% pay-cut was foisted upon me (under Rell’s deal with the unions), and furlough days were implemented –even though my company was operating in the black and had budgeted for raises.
Now, as a state employee, I’m being vilified in the media and strong-armed for “concessions” to essentially pay for the unsustainable benefits packages of the old, retired “Tier 1” state employees (the employees hired before 1984 who got the “Cadillac” pension plans that enrage the general public.) “Tier 2a” benefits (what I get) are quite modest in comparison. On top of that, my taxes are going up just like yours.
Frankly, at this point I’m praying for massive lay-offs rather than concessions –because I’m confident that I’m skilled enough to keep my job. But I doubt the unions will let that happen.
So, cry all you want .25% tax increase, or a lost tax credit. But be happy you’re not me –the person who is getting royally screwed by this fiasco.
Leave a Comment