CT News Junkie | Malloy Makes Cuts To DCF, Higher Ed

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network

Categories

Our Partners

Malloy Makes Cuts To DCF, Higher Ed

by | Nov 20, 2014 4:31pm
() Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: State Budget

Hugh McQuaid Photo

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy

(Updated at 6:43 pm) Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s administration called Thursday for cuts to the Children and Families Department, higher education, and other agencies as part of $54.6 million in rescissions, designed to help close a $99.5 million budget deficit.

The 2015 budget’s $99.5 million deficit is less than 1 percent of the general fund, which means Malloy has the authority to make decisions about where to make the cuts without input from the General Assembly. The governor can rescind up to 5 percent of any line item and 3 percent of any fund without seeking legislative approval.

Malloy can cut from the Executive Branch without approval, but he’s also asked the Judicial Branch to cut $6 million and the Legislative Branch to cut by nearly $1 million.

Of the executive agencies, the largest of the cuts outlined Thursday comes from the Children and Families Department’s board and care residential program. It’s budget will be reduced by around $6.3 million.

Both the Developmental Services Department and the Department of Social Services will have their personal services budget cut by $2 million. The Developmental Services Department will see another $2 million cut from its employment opportunities and day services program.

Sen. Beth Bye, co-chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said the legislature has a cooperative relationship with the Malloy administration and would “work together to solve this.” But Bye said parts of the plan concerned her.

“I definitely have concerns about the $6 million cut for board and care for children under DCF care. I need to better understand what that looks like, exactly, because I don’t want anything to negatively impact our care for adolescents who have mental health and behavioral challenges,” she said.

Malloy’s budget director Ben Barnes is expected to address the legislature’s Appropriations and Finance Committees on Friday afternoon. Bye said she also is interested to hear whether any of the cuts will impact mental health services, especially services for children.

Bye said she expects to hear from the state’s universities and colleges. The plan calls for cuts throughout the higher education system.

It includes a $2.3 million cut to the University of Connecticut’s operating budget and a $1.3 million cut to the UConn Health Center. Meanwhile, the Connecticut State University System’s budget will be reduced by about $1.6 million. Transform CSCU, a program to invest in the system, will be cut by $1.2 million.

Board of Regents spokesman Michael W. Kozlowski said the reductions could have been worse.

“At first glance we are grateful for the restraint shown with respect to the Community Colleges,” he said in an email. “With respect to Transform and the BOR, any cut in this environment is painful, but we will do our part to help address the state’s current fiscal crisis.”

At a press conference before the recessions were released, Malloy said he had looked at a draft of the cuts earlier in the day. He downplayed the severity of the rescissions.

“There’s not a whole lot of major stuff. I mean, this is for a lot of budgets a 1 percent to 5 percent cut,” he said. “Again, I’ll give my example, the total budget is twenty-thousand million and we’re talking about a $100 million issue.”

Malloy said some things in the budget will remain untouched.

“Part of it also is going through and seeing where people are on their spending plan. So some of the easiest stuff to do is identify those departments that aren’t on schedule to spend their money anyway,” he said.

In a statement, Barnes said the administration was managing the budget to prevent a deficit and not raise taxes.

“These rescissions are painful for some, but tough decisions are necessary to keep the state on firm fiscal footing. State government will live within its means, and we will not raise taxes,” Barnes said. “As difficult as some of these reductions are to make now, there are more, even tougher choices as we look ahead to next fiscal year.”

Republican lawmakers said the cuts will not be adequate to address the budget shortfall. Sen. Rob Kane, ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, said the state’s fiscal problem will eventually require the involvement of the legislature.

“Democrats and Republicans worked well together in 2012 on the deficit mitigation plan, why not now?” he said.

Kane noted the cuts represent only about half the total deficit and said the administration was hoping for high sales tax revenues during the holiday shopping season to correct the shortfall.

“We can’t always work on a hope and a prayer of everything working out. You have to fix the structural problems with the budget,” he said.

Incoming House Minority Leader Themis Klarides released a statement accusing Malloy and Democrats of misleading the public during the election season.

“Clearly the Governor failed to acknowledge what everyone else who was paying attention recognized: Connecticut has a lingering fiscal crisis that was never adequately addressed either because of politics or woeful disregard for the truth,’’ she said. “This is just the first step forward that all sides must take together.’’

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

Comments

(29) Archived Comments

posted by: justsayin | November 20, 2014  7:34pm

He ran on supporting higher ed and votech, manufacturing. How many more lies and deception can this guy produce? He is making CT a national joke, disgraceful.

posted by: Politijoe | November 21, 2014  5:50am

Politijoe

Just sayin I don’t believe Ct is a “national joke” many states are in similar if not worse fiscal situations. The reality is this projected deficit was coming regardless who won election. What conservatives and frankly most moderates are uncomfortable with is the optics. I agree they do raise some eyebrows however, the objective remains the same, balance the budget by the end of the fiscal year.

This is really part of a broader issue of national taxation that requires both some spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthiest individuals and corporations. These issues simply cannot be resolved with spending cuts alone.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | November 21, 2014  8:22am

Aid to cities and towns is where the cuts should be made, let them sort it out.

HST

posted by: jim black | November 21, 2014  9:13am

Sadly we are not even close to the punch line of the Malloy joke.

posted by: art vandelay | November 22, 2014  11:55pm

art vandelay

@Politijoe,
I’d like to take your premise one step further.  Could you kindly explain to my why states like Wyoming, Tennessee, Texas & Florida can balance their state budgets and live within their means WITHOUT a state income tax?  These states are not afraid to lay off personnel, eliminate departments and yes repeal binding arbitration. It seems the only way Connecticut can balance its budget is by raising taxes and transferring previously non spent bonded money to the general fund.  Something’s definitely wrong with the way we do things here in Connecticut. I’d REALLY like to hear your answer.

posted by: SocialButterfly | November 23, 2014  5:41pm

@DrHunterSThompson:  Are you attempting to salvage some hilarity in your madness?

posted by: ocoandasoc | November 23, 2014  7:00pm

I can answer you Art. In the states you mention big unions and special interest groups do not control the state legislature. The per capita debt in TN is about $800… in CT it is now well over $10,000… and rising quickly. For some reason folks in CT don’t believe you can be a social progressive but a fiscal conservative. They ridicule states like the ones you mention as backward and not as livable as CT. But the truth is just the opposite. Over 90% of the incumbents in the CT Legislature were just reelcted. Check where their cmapain financing is coming from and you’ll understand whose interests they actually represent.

posted by: Politijoe | November 23, 2014  11:14pm

Politijoe

Art: you ask why states like Wyoming, Tennessee, Texas & Florida can live within their means WITHOUT a state income tax?

I’ve found the best method is to provide context by relating GSP and per capita data to measure the comparative economic well being of a state. Some of the states without income taxes compensate for the missing revenue through sales and corporate taxes. Other states simply spend less on services to keep a balanced budget. Wyoming actually had the third-highest tax revenue per capita in the nation in large part because Wyoming like Texas and other oil and gas states collect severance taxes, or taxes on production of oil and other hydrocarbons. They are able to raise huge sums of money through these taxes on their large natural resources industries, and do not need to collect as much tax revenue from incomes or sales. Therefore, its apples and oranges to compare these states to non-oil states like Connecticut. It also worth mentioning that states such as Texas, Florida, Wyoming and Tennessee have all been traditionally frugal and Florida and Texas are among the bottom states for revenue per capita. Because of their below-average revenue, spending in Texas is just $4,905 per resident, near the bottom of all states. In Florida the revenue per capita is $4,400, the lowest of all fifty states, the national average is $6,400 per capita. Generally speaking lower revenues means fewer services. For instance Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation. The states public schools and mental health are dismal compared to other states. More than a quarter of Florida’s total revenue comes from state sales taxes. Which is higher than all but five other states. Nearly 20% of Florida residents live in poverty — not only one of the steepest poverty levels, but nearly the highest in the country. One in five residents don’t have health insurance and Florida can boast one of the lowest rates of educational spending in the country. Florida brought in just $3,900 in revenue per resident, the third lowest of all states. Since revenue is lower in these states the evidence indicates so is spending on services like transportation, education, healthcare, children, elderly and services for special needs. There are five states with the highest per capita GSP, which include: Alaska, Delaware, Wyoming, Connecticut, and New York. Connecticut has 3% GSP. This also reflects about 10.7% of residents living at or below the poverty line-one of the lower rates in the nation. Art you also cited “These states are not afraid to repeal binding arbitration” the challenge with this statement is I don’t believe there is any evidence between eliminating binding arbitration and a states economic well-being. The reality is taxes are the membership dues to a civilized society. Comparative data clearly indicates, lower revenues equates to lower spending We don’t have a spending problem-we have a math problem.

posted by: art vandelay | November 24, 2014  10:36am

art vandelay

@Politijoe,
I love your rebuttals which are filled with facts, opinions, and statements obtained from thin air. If I were your college professor I’d give you an F for not stating your sources. I can only conclude they come from fact checkers at MSNBC or some other progressive think tank.
I think you answered my question in one statement “spend less on services to keep a balanced budget”.  I could research statistics to counter everyone of your statistics, but I’m not going to waste my time.

posted by: SocialButterfly | November 25, 2014  7:07pm

@art vandelay: Why are you still wasting your time looking for answers from Politijoe? You already know that he will not enlighten you with brilliance.

posted by: shinningstars122 | November 25, 2014  10:11pm

shinningstars122

Since Art never post his own sources here is one that look very fun to play around with.

I have set it to 2014 and if you look at Connecticut in comparison to there states and their debt, we are in the middle

We are doing better than New Mexico, Texas, Wisconsin, or even Louisiana.

Chris Christie’s NJ is near the bottom kids.

So much for that 2016 run.

Doctor cutting aid to cities and towns only means increased property taxes.

Time to lay off of that kush man.

posted by: GBear423 | November 26, 2014  6:39am

GBear423

oh well there is New Hampshire, which has no income tax or a state sales tax.  Admittedly, they do rely heavily on Property taxes, which are indeed high; they come in not quite as high as ours…

and we have all 3 categories of taxes on our residents.

posted by: Politijoe | November 26, 2014  6:54am

Politijoe

Art,
I’m uncertain why the basic premise eludes you. If a state has less tax revenue by default they have less to spend on services like education, transportation, healthcare, elderly, special needs. That is simple math.

You ask my thoughts and to provide some data and then you dismiss that information out of hand. Tell me where this premise is faulty based on incomplete data?

States like Texas, Wyoming and others have don’t have income tax revenues because they are oil/ gas producing states therefore they simply don’t need the tax revenue and it’s not an apples to apples comparison. Florida, although not an oil/gas producing state, does have a 70 billion dollar tourism industry. All this is simple enough.

Now again look at the GSP per capita and there you’ll find the data to support this-still simple.

Compare the per capita data of Ct with other non-oil states and you’ll see we’re not much different, in some cases better and in a few lagging. However the critical point is states with lower tax revenues have far worse services as I’ve already pointed out.

I’ve provided you with a question it’s not my obligation to also provide you with an answer. Art you certainly have a right to your opinion but not to your own facts and I refuse to do your homework for you.

So please Art, provide some substantive response instead of a simple bumper-sticker answer.

posted by: Truth_To_Power | November 26, 2014  11:21am

Gotta love Politjoe’s circular reasoning. He states:

“If a state has less tax revenue by default they have less to spend on services like education, transportation, healthcare, elderly, special needs. That is simple math.”

He then goes on to admit “States like Texas, Wyoming and others have don’t have income tax revenues because they are oil/ gas producing states therefore they simply don’t need the tax revenue..”

No contradiction there Joe. They don’t have the money to spend, but they do have the money to spend. ‘Simple’ appears to be the word of the day

posted by: SocialButterfly | November 26, 2014  11:39am

@shootingstars122: Although you chided Art for not revealing his sources, you did not reveal your source in which you cite that Connecticut is better off than New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and New Jersey. Also please break down what constitutes “better off.”
What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander.

posted by: GBear423 | November 26, 2014  11:40am

GBear423

I think bringing up Texas and their oil wealth is relevant, the same as the results of their education system compared to ours.
I randomly picked 2012 for comparison-
Texas had an 87.7% rate*
Conn. had an 83% rate.**

I assume we spend more overall on education?

*Texas Education Agency
** Hartford Courant

posted by: art vandelay | November 26, 2014  12:06pm

art vandelay

@Politijoe,
Guilty as charged. I do dismiss your information out of hand for one simple reason, and one reason only. You never footnote your sources.

I lived in Wyoming while obtaining my undergraduate degree.  I have an understanding how a state with a conservative frugal government can live within its means. I agree Oil, Coal Uranium plus Ranching are the main industries in the state. The revenue generated by these industries are administered prudently by a state government who spends the revenue wisely.
Yes social services do exist, but the underlying edict was all welfare applications included a one way bus ticket out of the state.
Connecticut does not have a revenue problem.  It HAS a spending issue.  Connecticut must learn to leave within its means. It should only spend money it receives.
Liberal Progressive Democrats never learned this and never will.

posted by: ASTANVET | November 26, 2014  12:15pm

even if we all don’t agree on the essential functions of government and what should be paid for, I think what POlitijoe and Art have shown is that Gas/Oil producing or not, you have to live and spend within your means.  There are negative consequences to taxing citizens to death and not having industry to pay large tax bases.  CT is now having to spend more per capita (govt spending) because there are a lot of campaign promises to keep… like the one to the state unions only to cut budgets and have a hiring freeze… hahahaha… good bait and switch.

posted by: Politijoe | November 26, 2014  2:23pm

Politijoe

Truth2power: you’re correct, it is counter intuitive and that’s the point. when it comes to a state like Texas that is a large hydrocarbon producing state they don’t have the same requirements or demand for an tax revenue. However, in spite of this Texas has extremely poor services particularly when it comes to healthcare. In contrast, Wyoming is also a large oil/gas state without income tax revenues but actually does quite well with their level of social services so there is some contradiction. With that said the GENERAL pattern throughout the nation is that lower taxation states have less resources towards services. Therefore, I would suggest you refrain from arguing arcane semantics do your homework and simply look at the patterns based on per capita data.

Shooting stars: you stated “you cite that Connecticut is better off than New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and New Jersey.” I did not cite that Ct was better off than those specific states. I had stated that Ct GSP is better than most and falls a bit short with others. The common theme here again….. Is perspective. Stop arguing semantics on each individual item within specific states- Arts initial question and look at the overall pattern of GSP based on per capita data and how the dynamic of low revenue equates to social expenditures.

Kansas is a good illustration of a state that doesn’t rely on hydrocarbon resources. It’s also a good illustration of a state that has had fairly good numbers with regards to GSP, poverty, literacy and birth rates. Their social services which include healthcare, education, transportation, law enforcement, fire, etc…. Have been historically acceptable. However in recent years Kansas has been controlled by conservative extremism. They have slashed spending on social services across the board. Their “pro-growth” tax policies for “job creators” resulted in state revenues plummeting by $700 million dollars in one year, their credit ratings downgraded and 20 straight months of job growth stagnation at the expense of draconian cuts to social services-in particular education which saw the it’s deepest cuts in history. This disaster became so intolerable the states GOP created a defacto coup crafting the Kansas values movement. The groups Republican small business owners were alarmed by the level of cuts they experienced resulting in tax reductions from $800 to $100 and from $25k to $6k. The republican Kansas values movement recognized the huge discrepancy in the revenue side and no way to compensate for this gap. Similar Examples exist in Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan and Texas.

What I would like is for the conservatives here to refrain from the silly distractions, research the data, look at the comparisons, identify the trends and patterns and continue the dialog. What I suspect, as evidenced by the thread already, unfortunately is more of the same bumper-sticker responses and sound bite solutions absent any empirical data or substantive thought.

posted by: Politijoe | November 28, 2014  7:35am

Politijoe

Truth2power: you’re correct, it is counter intuitive….when it comes to a state like Texas that is a large hydrocarbon producing state they don’t have the same requirements or demand for tax revenue. However, in spite of this, Texas has extremely poor services particularly when it comes to healthcare. In contrast, Wyoming is also a large oil/gas state without income tax revenues but actually does quite well with their level of social services so there is some contradiction. With that suggest is when considered within the purview of per capita data, a GENERAL pattern of lower taxation equates to less services.

Shooting stars: you stated “you cite that Connecticut is better off than New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and New Jersey.” I did not cite that Ct was better off than those specific states. I had stated that Ct GSP is better than most and falls a bit short with others. The common theme here again….. Is perspective. Arts initial question pertained to the overall pattern of GSP based on per capita data and how the dynamic of low revenue equates to social expenditures.

Kansas is a good illustration of a state that doesn’t rely on hydrocarbon resources and a state that had fairly good numbers with regards to GSP, poverty, literacy rates and social services: healthcare, education, transportation, law enforcement, fire, etc…. These have historically been acceptable. However in recent years Kansas has been controlled by conservative extremism. They have slashed spending on social services across the board. Their “pro-growth” tax policies for “job creators” resulted in state revenues plummeting by $700 million dollars in one year, their credit ratings downgraded and 20 straight months of job growth stagnation as a result of draconian cuts to social services-in particular education which saw the it’s deepest cuts in history. This disaster became so intolerable the states GOP created a defacto coup crafting the Kansas values movement. Even the groups Republican small business owners were alarmed by the level of business tax cuts they received. These trickle-down tax reductions reduced liabilities from $25k to $6k. The republican Kansas values movement recognized the huge discrepancy in the revenue side and no way to compensate for this gap and organized AGAINST their own best interests. Similar Examples exist in Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan and Texas.

What I would like is for the conservatives here to refrain from the silly distractions, research the data, look at the comparisons, identify the trends and patterns and continue the dialog. What I suspect unfortunately, as evidenced by the thread already, is more of the same bumper-sticker responses and sound bite solutions absent any empirical data or substantive thought.

posted by: art vandelay | November 28, 2014  11:22am

art vandelay

@PolitiJoe,
I love your term “governed by conservative extremism”.  I’d still like to know where you are obtaining your “facts” to back up your statements.

I’d have to classify Connecticut as being run by LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE/SOCIALIST EXTREMISTS. I’d classify allowing illegals drivers licenses, no death penalty, legalization of marijuana,
same day voter registration, all progressive extremist legislation.

posted by: Truth_To_Power | November 28, 2014  12:27pm

the only contradictions, Politjoe, are with your statements and your attempts to justify and/or reconcile them. You essentially want readers to believe that states with less ‘income’ (from whatever sources, including taxes and carbon-based) have less to spend on services, education, etc., while in the same breath admitting that those states with ENOUGH income from carbon-based sources provide less services - without acknowledging that those states CHOOSE to spend less on services in order to live within their means and maintain a budget. You conveniently choose to ignore this element of choice in your long-winded diatribes, resulting in a huge hole in what you expect us to accept as your ‘reasoning’. Is it an accident that those low-tax states with surplus income from sources other than taxes, somehow spend less on services and live within their means at the same time? Maybe it’s a coincidence? Please do your homework and look up the definition of the word ‘choice’.

You can fill reader comments sections and letter-to-the editor sections with unlimited verbiage and $3.00 words and it still doesn’t amount to anything more than puffery. “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bul@@@t” has never been more appropriate than when applied to your postings. Your insistence that everyone else is wrong and should do their homework in order to reach your intellectual loftiness is rather boring. What I would like from you is to refrain from ‘silly distractions’ while refraining from using terms like ‘empirical data’ while providing none of your own - but I guess that’s too much to ask.

posted by: Politijoe | November 28, 2014  6:50pm

Politijoe

Art: you state ”I do dismiss your information out of hand for one simple reason, and one reason only. You never footnote your sources.”…..  I suspect that your eagerness to dismiss any information not sourced is simply a convenient excuse to negate the information or the facts that don’t adhere to your limited perspective. The data I’ve provided is information I have learned over the years, and with that said, it is easily available to corroborate. I would offer to you that if you feel these facts are inaccurate or misleading then please, by all means share other facts that contradict this. Not anecdotes, not conjecture and not value statements but facts. For what’s its worth, I randomly located three links in thirty seconds that I think should at least provide some context on this subject.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/04/26/these-states-have-no-income-tax/8116161/

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/07 July/0711_gdp-state.pdf

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/07/28/the-10-most-oil-rich-states/2/

Your additional comment “I lived in Wyoming, social services do exist, but the underlying edict was all welfare applications included a one way bus ticket out of the state.”
…….. I believe this is an over simplification. Wyoming actually does comparatively well with social services-including “welfare applications” as if this is somehow the one big problem with Wyoming or Ct.

Your belief that Connecticut does not have a revenue problem, it HAS a spending problem is SAME DEBATE regarding the federal budget and it is an
over simplification that is not based on fact.

Art you stated “I’d classify allowing, illegals drivers licenses, no death penalty, legalization of marijuana,
same day voter registration all progressive extremist legislation.”……… I guess that pretty much sums it up, the fact that you feel THESE pieces of legislation-( granting Illegal immigrants drivers licenses, eliminating the death penalty, legalization of marijuana and same day voter registration) as extremist is such an absolutist position and not obviously based on any evidenced based conclusion but simply an emotional reaction based on pre-conceived notions that it leaves no-where left to go.

What I would like is for you to remain open to the possibilities that you may in fact be wedded to your beliefs and not the truth on many of these issues and therefore leave no room for moderation, just absolutes.

posted by: shinningstars122 | November 29, 2014  10:14am

shinningstars122

@Socialbutterfly is you click on the highlighted word ” middle” in blue it will connect you to the source I am citing.

That was easy!

Plus @PolitiJoe I was not responding to your analysis and provided the link of empirical data to further deepen this debate.

I think another fact to consider is the populations of a state like Wyoming, it is only 582,658 while Texas is over 26 million.

It is much easier for Wyoming to live within its means than Texas, but as history has shown politicians will spend when times are good.

The other fact is many of these conservative states use much more higher percents of their budgets from federal dollars, a fact that conservatives love to deny.

This report is excellent source for that data.

In 2013 CT used 13.73% of its budget using federal funds.

Conservative states like Wyoming used 63.47% and Texas comes in with a whopping 72.4%

The other thing is how much state spending has increased in Wyoming in just one year 1.254 billion with the majority of it being from federal funds nearly $807,000,000.

It is clear to this reader that it is the residents progressive states, like CT, are in fact subsidizing the poorer, and less taxed conservative states.

How could any rational conservative except that contradiction?

Art?

posted by: SocialButterfly | November 30, 2014  11:54am

@shinningstrs122: Peace be with you MERRY CHRISTMAS.

posted by: art vandelay | November 30, 2014  10:42pm

art vandelay

@Shiningstars122,
If I interpret your numbers correctly,Wyoming is getting 3/4 of its annual operating budget from the feds. Wyoming must have two excellent Senators who know how to bring that kind of bacon back into their state. I see a great development opportunity for our two illustrious Senators.  Imagine 3/4 of Connecticut’s 20 billion plus annual budget being picked up by the feds. We’d have the lowest taxes in the nation, and our debt completely eradicated.  With this Governor and our progressive legislature I doubt it.  We’d have the best welfare state in the nation a mecca for for every “cart” rider imaginable.

posted by: Politijoe | December 1, 2014  6:49am

Politijoe

Truth to power:  Your clumsy attempt suggesting I have tried to justify and reconcile the contradictions misses the point entirely. Although It remains a states choice, were discussing why specific states like Texas, Wyoming, Florida and Tennessee have no income tax revenue. How that revenue gap is filled and what are the consequences to other states like Ct with income tax revenue and then to compare that with the social services. On a GSP per capita basis Ct falls about the middle with much better outcomes for social services. States with higher revenues sometimes spend appropriately on social services and others don’t, Other states with lower revenues don’t have the resources to spend appropriately on services, again this shouldn’t be a surprise to you or anyone else.

You went on to question “Is it an accident that low-tax states with surplus income from sources other than taxes, somehow spend less on services and live within their means at the same time?”…… the problem with your premise is not all states with surplus revenues from sources other than taxes spend appropriate levels of social services and “live within their means”.

In spite of your desire for sound-bite solutions, this is a complex question and the thing conservatives’ hate most is abstract and complex issues. That’s precisely why the politics of Sarah Palin and Glen Beck appeal to them-because its so simple to understand.

Shinngstars added One of the most critical points to this discussion that is sure to be lost in conservative noise: “Conservative states use a much higher percent of their budgets from federal dollars, a fact that conservatives love to deny. It is the residents of progressive states, like CT, who are in fact subsidizing the poorer, and less taxed conservative states.”

Art, I assume you can agree this is a complex issue and not a simple indictment against Ct , Malloy or Democrats. Ct is not fairing far worse when you compare GSP and per capita data. When you look at the federal budget (with an objective unbiased perspective) regarding revenues, expenditures and “welfare”  one arrives at the same conclusion….. we dont have a spending problem-we have a math problem.

posted by: art vandelay | December 1, 2014  9:44am

art vandelay

@Politijoe,
I totally disagree.  Connecticut DOES have a spending problem and has since John Bailey & the Democrats decided to entice
the lower echelons of society into this state in exchange for their votes. As a result this group started placing more demands on state government State government expanded from a few departments like DMV, Fish & Game ,State Police to well over 160. The entire system exploded Ronald Reagan’s economic policies brought more money into this state than it knew what to do with. Our illustrious Democrats in Hartford spent it faster than they could imagine.  The result was a deficit under the O’Neill Administration.  He could never say NO!. Weicker (NO Republican by any stretch) along with his partner in crime Bill Cibes demanded an income tax to resolve the deficit. It was his way or the highway. Once it was enacted state government exploded once again. The income tax was simply a license to spend, and it’s exactly what the state did.

State governments with no income tax make it extremely difficult for the freeloaders to survive.  They seek refuge elsewhere. Maybe Connecticut would be better off doing the same. Problem is we have a political party in power that relies on this voter base for their existence. Don’t get me wrong.  I believe in charity and helping the people who have fallen on hard times not by their own fault.
I do have a problem with people who refuse to help themselves and rely on the system for their existence.

posted by: Politijoe | December 1, 2014  9:46pm

Politijoe

ART: you stated “State governments with no income tax make it extremely difficult for the freeloaders”
Followed by ” I do have a problem with people who refuse to help themselves and rely on the system for their existence.”

Your phrases “freeloaders and those who refuse to help themselves” are interesting definitions. Problem is they are vague, non-descript and emotionally laden.
Who are these individuals, how many are there, what are they taking, what does it cost? 

Im sure you’ll agree absent evidence, data and facts what we have is simply conjecture, anecdotes and emotional rhetoric.

Again, this is a math problem-same as the federal budget. Thus far you have simply disagreed without any real substance. I remain open to opposing data.