OP-ED: Candidates Comfortable in the Land of the Big Lie
by Jonathan Pelto | Jul 25, 2010 5:00am
(11) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
On the path of life, past the island of “liar liar pants on fire,” one comes to a place called the Land of the Big Lie. It is a location populated by far too many politicians.
Among its heralded residents is George H.W. Bush, who famously declared “Read my lips, no new taxes.” in 1988. He went on to support some of the largest tax increases in history.
Here in Connecticut, we are well accustomed to politicians who will say or do anything to get elected, even if it means lying. In 1990, former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker pontificated that adopting a state income tax “would be like throwing gasoline on a fire.” Weeks later, after winning the election, he proposed and then led the battle that gave Connecticut its present income tax.
Not to be outdone, in the fall of 1994 then Republican gubernatorial candidate John G. Rowland repeatedly promised that if elected, he would repeal Connecticut’s income tax. It was a promise that, despite a decade in office, he never attempted to keep.
Now, as the state of Connecticut faces what has become an extraordinary budget crisis, common sense, decency, and necessity would suggest that candidates across the political spectrum would strive to be honest with the voters.
But the three individuals seeking the Republican nomination for governor have, for the most part, chosen to go exactly in the opposite direction.
When the next governor is sworn into office in January 2011, he will face a budget shortfall of well over $3 billion. The legacy of failed leadership and bad decisions has finally caught up with us and as a result, Connecticut has never faced a fiscal crisis of this proportion.
Everyone who even vaguely understands Connecticut’s budget recognizes that the only solution will require a combination of budget cuts and tax increases.
Last year, when a legislative committee worked to identify even a billion dollars in cuts (which would only address a third of the present problem), their report identified that the state would have to “close six community colleges, two regional campuses for the University of Connecticut,and two prisons.”
In addition, it would have to “cut up to 20 percent in payments to cities and towns, nursing homes, and social service agencies,” as well as make similar deep cuts to “hospitals, child welfare programs, and mental health treatment facilities.” The fact is, not only would these cuts lead to higher local property taxes and higher tuition for families, it would actually cost state taxpayers more in the long run as vital services were severely cut and health and human needs went unaddressed.
Faced with this stark reality, the Republican candidates have decided to forgo honesty and instead have determined that their “best” course of action is to lie to the very people they want to represent.
Tom Foley, the leading Republican contender has repeatedly said “We can solve this budget deficit without any new taxes.”
Not be outdone, Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele has gone so far as to repeatedly say “I pledge to you the following: As your Governor I will veto ANY legislation that proposes to raise our taxes.” His running mate, Danbury Mayor Boughton adds that their campaign position is “No fees, no taxes, no tolls”
Oz Griebel, the most politically sophisticated of the three, has played a game of duck-and-cover and consistently said the state’s financial problems are the result of excessive spending, while refusing to answer questions about taxes. That said, when it comes to the tax issue, his most interesting comment so far has come when he cautioned against trying to get the wealthy to pay their fair share for fear they might all get up and leave Connecticut. He was recently quoted saying “the people who have the very most are the very same people who could most leave.”
These three Republican candidates may be naïve but they are not stupid. They know, as does everyone who is involved in state government, that some form of tax increases are in our future. But instead of engaging in an honest discussion about the difficult choices ahead, they seem content to stay in the Land of the Big Lie in the hope that voters will simply overlook their duplicity.
They would do well to listen to the advice of Thomas Jefferson who said, “He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him.”
Then again, maybe the responsibility ultimately rests not on the shoulders of these liars but on the voters who must decide what to do about it. As Homer Simpson said, “It takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.”
We’ll know soon enough since Election Day 2010 is about 100 days away.
Jonathan Pelto served as a member of the House of Representatives from 1984-1993. He was Deputy Majority Leader and member of the Appropriations Committees during the income tax debate of 1991. He presently works as a strategic communications consultant.
(11) Comments
posted by: Martha H | July 28, 2010 5:47pm
“...the people who have the very most are the very same people who could most leave.”
And good riddance, selfish and miserly tax dodgers….
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 29, 2010 2:41am
Eat the Rich, Martha?
An interesting study on New Jersey’s out migration of $70 Billion in wealth between 2004-2008.
The report reinforces findings from a study conducted in 2007 by Rutgers which found a sharp acceleration in residents leaving the state. That report, which focused on income rather than wealth, found the state lost nearly $8 billion in gross income in 2005 alone…....
We can’t solve the problems merely by taxing the rich.
OTOH we can. Much like we can underfund the pensions each and every year and lie to ourselves about the Ponzi scheme we are building.
What we saw under Weicker, Rowland, and Rell are that the unions will trade underfunded pensions to minimize layoffs.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 29, 2010 3:19am
I’ll put it another way Martha.
I don’t know the pain point as to when enough wealth leaves a state that it becomes counter-productive to fair taxation and government services to keep increasing their taxes.
I do know this: NJ and NY are there. I subscribe to Tom Foley’s simple statement that we need to keep our rates far enough south or NJ and NY that CT remains an attractie alternative to Pennslyvania or upstate New York or North Central Jersey.
That filthy rich half a county on the Gold Coast pays over 50% of the income taxes in CT. My rural county (Litchfield) pays under 4.5% of CT’s Income taxes.
Unlike Weicker who lowered sales and corporate taxes after adding the income tax (later adding the property tax refund) and setting up the casino deal with Foxwood, the sources of new income this time around are more limited.
I haven’t seen a real plan yet from anyone that would cover the real costs of SustiNet, the present deficit, and the pension shortfall not to mention the new fiscal realities coming from Washington for ObamaCare and the need for the Feds to reign in spending (which will mean tax increases).
Then there are those that want additional property tax relief via the income tax.
What are “Voices for Children” proposing this year?
No layoffs, no cuts in the corporate business tax, higher income and sales and corporate taxes and and new city taxes for the four big cities.
And the four cities need more property tax relief than the suburbs.
Measured outcomes? No. We wouldn’t want to be judgmental after all. That network of overlapping and ineffectual social service agencies? Increase their funding of course. Let’s reward their failure.
I won’t even talk about SuatiNet. The players are same industry morons who got us into the situation we are now. Nothing is being proposed that will cause any discomfort in their present operations. Not even a ltitle squeak from management. When you see the hospitals and medical professionals crying in the press then you know SustiNet is doing what they need to do. Won’t happen. It’s a complete sham in that respect. The industry loves SustiNet. That should tell you something.
Gordon Gecko is investing in CT managed care and hospitals as we speak. Blue Horsehoe loves SustiNet.
posted by: CT Jim | July 29, 2010 8:34am
Goatee your asumption that Faiurfield county pays 50% of the state income tax is a huge exageration.
the pay around 40% not 50% and they control 95%of all dollars coming into the state, so are they paying 37% more than they should as you state or 55% less than they should as everyone else thinks.
It probably ends some where in the middle.
As for Jerseys so called exodus of wealth the facts are those people STILL live in Jersey they are just better at dodging taxes many doing what the richies do here and that is pay their taxes to NY rather than the state they live in.
The taxes on the wealthy in the US is the LOWEST in the world and since Ronnie trickle down my back Reagan we have siphoned $11 trillion dollars and giving it to the wealthy.
Apparently it’s ok for a stimulus deficit spending program as long as it benifits the wealthy, but when it benifits the working class it’s an entitlement.
As for the wealthy leaving the state GO GOOD Riddence!!!
They have robbed the treasury of the US and CT and it should be fitting they take their families and move to Argentina like some other criminals have done after WW2
posted by: James D | July 29, 2010 9:21am
BoatGoyRMH,
You alway make no sense.
This time you make non-sense.
Trying to trash the overwhelmingly-popular SustiNet health care reform law by arguing that “Business doesn’t oppose it enough??” That’s the BEST you can do? Your illogical debate gymnastics are… well… funny. Let’s see…. Businesses do oppose tax increases. So then, YOU must SUPPORT them? Glorry be!
Oh, and BTW, you got your facts all wrong too. The Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA) has always opposed SustiNet. So that must mean that YOU now support the best state health care reform law in the nation, right?
Hmmm…..
Time to head for the pastures, kid?
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 29, 2010 10:08am
It was 47% before the new surcharges Jim
http://ctlocalpolitics.net/2009/06/15/connecticuts-income-tax-by-county/
There will be higher taxes but we aren’t hearing anything realistic. So far all we get from Malloy and LaMont are why prioritize a budget?
I’ve run the numbers before (as has Christine) and fully funding the current deficit, the pension shortfall and SustiNet would pretty much put CT at the extreme—The highest Income Tax, Sales Tax, Proerty Tax and Corporate Tax in the nation.
And that’s without job creation programs.
I have no love for the rich but driving them out of this state would be a mistake.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 29, 2010 10:15am
Then there’s this woman who had bigger cahones than all the 2010 governor candidates together.
....Like most Governors, Grasso, 56, has had a rough year. Women’s groups have assailed her anti-abortion stand (says she: “Bella calls me up and screams at me over the phone”). Most important, her longtime allies in labor and the Democratic legislature rejected her demands for cutbacks in social spending and an increase in the work week for state employees (from 35 to 40 hours) to narrow a big budget deficit. Grasso has responded by ordering layoffs of up to 6,000 state workers. “I’m still classically compassionate,” she says, “but what am I supposed to do? Sell the state down the river to accommodate labor’s wishes?” Answering her own question, she says: “Women in office can be as tough as anyone else.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947599-2,00.html#ixzz0v53wfgOt
posted by: CT Jim | July 29, 2010 3:08pm
Goatee,
your numbers are wrong but who cares we still need to increase what the contribute.
As foe Ella,
Come on pal nice woman but she’s been dead for what 30 years now???
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 30, 2010 5:11am
Jim,
Grasso changed the work week from 35 hours to 37.5 hours. I don’t see over- worked union members dying at their cubes in the State of CT.
I support raising the work week to 40 hours. That’s the devils number: 6.66% more work per person for the same money.
It also implies the same work can be done with 6% fewer heads.
I know SEBAC will kick and scream and warn everyone about the impending deaths and suicides in the cubes of all the state offices but I want a Governor who will take that risk.
Also the 4-day work week AWS? Absolutely abused. 8 hour days, 5 day weeks. An immediate layoff of 5% in the jobs affected. and a three-year hiring freeze on those positions.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 30, 2010 5:15am
James D,
I support SustiNet and National Health Care. I don’t support the early direction from reading notes and meeting agendas.
We need more Tony Sopranos in the mix strong arming hospitals, unions, physicians, nurses, and insurance companies and fewer Nancy Wyman/Kevin Lembo types over seeing the same people who got us into this mess and rubber stamping a tax fiasco.
posted by: CT Jim | July 30, 2010 8:29am
Goatee,
you do realize that most state agency’s are woefully understaffed right now??
You also know because of this workers are working overime like crazy actually costing the state more than hiring people to fill the slots?
You also know that CT is the 4th leanest state in the country when its comes to public services. Right??
I am sure you must know that seeing you are so great with throwing out figures.
you must also know that those closings of group homes your Governor did last year is now costing the state much mush more than keeping them open.
Some of the clients are now being housed out of state at the cost of tens of millions and the ones kicked to the curb are making their way through the courts and corrections systems.
Which is why we have so many prisons because Rowland-Rell thought it would be easier to incarcerate the mentally ill rather than treat them and we see how well thats working.
Your assumption that we can still provide vital services to the citizens of CT is pure hogwash and a 5th grader could do the same simple math that your using while claiming to be some PHD LOL.
Besides that would mean the other 94% would get an average of 12.3 hours of overtime to cover the lost workers, maybe you might want to break out your toys R us calculator to figure out the cost of that.
There are no simple answers to CT’s problems and your flippant I know everything attitutude is starting to BORE me.
