Five Democratic Senators Vote Against Budget
by Christine Stuart | June 25, 2009 4:57 PM
Posted to State Capitol
Despite speculation that Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell will veto it the Senate returned to the Capitol Thursday and passed a Democratic budget, which increases taxes by an estimated $2.5 billion.
But not all 24 of the Democratic senators voted in favor of their own party’s budget. The final vote was 19-16 with five Democratic senators joining 11 Republicans to vote against the budget. Sen. Leonard Fasano, R-North Haven, was absent.
Democratic Senators Joan Hartley of Waterbury, Bob Duff of Norwalk, Gayle Slossberg of Milford, Ed Meyer of Guilford, and Paul Doyle of Wethersfield voted against the budget.
Following the vote, Slossberg said she didn’t think the budget struck the right balance between spending cuts and tax increases. She said she would like to see more spending cuts and fewer tax increases.
“It’s not at a level I felt comfortable with,” Slossberg said.
“My thought it was a bulls-eye for Fairfield County,” Duff said.
He said increasing business taxes, estate taxes, and income taxes is not in the “long-term” interests of the state of Connecticut.
Sen. President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said the governor hasn’t been saying “nice things” about the budget the Senate passed Thursday, but hopes she will keep an open mind.
He said even in good times its rare for the legislature to pass a budget with two-thirds approval.
Ultimately, “the people of Connecticut want a solution where the governor and the legislature come together,” he said.
Republicans criticized the $35.5 billion two-year budget for raising the corporate surcharge by 25 percent, imposing a temporary 30 percent surcharge on estates, and increasing income taxes on married couples earning $500,000 a year and individuals earning $265,000 a year.
Click here to see a chart of the income tax increases.
The budget also includes selling $112 million in unidentified state assets, increases the cigarette tax by 75 cents per pack, and closes two unidentified prisons.
Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Southport, said his party received the budget at 9 a.m. Thursday morning. He said he doesn’t think the governor is going to sign it, but he hopes like Williams that it will renew bipartisan budget talks with the governor.
Shortly after passing the budget Rell sent out a statement criticizing it.
“The Democrats’ budget goes in precisely the wrong direction at precisely the wrong time,” Rell said.
“It is neither balanced nor remotely realistic,” Rell said. “The nearly $3 billion in new and higher taxes is troubling - but what is of equal concern is the out of control spending. This budget squanders a golden opportunity to reshape and reduce the size of state government. Instead, it maintains the bloat of bureaucracy that is already unaffordable.”
Rell also pointed out in her statement that the Democratic budget did not include the transportation budget, which accounted for at least $1.137 billion of the $18.4 billion budget this year.
McKinney said the Democratic budget offered less than $200 million in new cuts and failed to say which state assets it would be selling. He also pointed out that after hammering away at the governor’s budget because it did not close the $8.7 billion deficit estimated by the nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis—the Democratic budget fell about $263 million short of closing OFA’s latest deficit projection.
The House of Representatives is expected to return to the Capitol Friday to pass the budget.
Comments (14)
Posted by: Lothar | June 25, 2009 5:50 PM
typical Rell. same talking points but no realistic solution. she's ridiculous.
Posted by: Linda Donahue | June 25, 2009 11:20 PM
The democrates are insane! At a time when everyone, businesses and individuals, are hurting, the democrates want to increase taxes!!! Haven't enough businesses left CT because of the high cost of doing business in this State? What will our reps do when there are no jobs in this State. WAKE UP!
Posted by: Ken Krayeske | June 26, 2009 1:27 AM
Great story, Christine.
Posted by: tk | June 26, 2009 10:09 AM
Does anyone know the story of where Len Fasano was? Or why Ed Meyer decided to vote against it?
Posted by: ACR | June 26, 2009 10:17 AM
"she's ridiculous"???
Veto proof majority; weeks late and they still can't line up their votes?
Now that's ridiculous.
Our Diesel fuel tax revenues have never approached the level they were prior to the LAST hike (they drive right through CT instead) so did these idiots even address that?
Of course not.
All the Dems see is MORE taxes and they ignore our logistical position whereby we could capture millions in revenues from out of state visitors while keeping costs lower for CT citizens.
Williams & Donovan amount to CT's own version of, Dumb & Dumber.
Posted by: Lothar | June 26, 2009 12:19 PM
Diesel's a drop in the bucket. She's not leading. She's dodging. No one is going to allow her to shut down the government. She's just trying to protect the wealthiest people of the state, from whom we haven't really heard.
Posted by: ACR | June 26, 2009 12:38 PM
"Diesel's a drop in the bucket"
Okay - so why not reduce the fuel tax to the earlier level?
The so-called "wealthy" already pay more than their share; such as over 90% of the income tax revenues currently raised - but you would try taxing them even more?
They'll claim residency in another state before you can even blink.
After all, they're wealthy and can easily afford a condo elsewhere.
Drive down to lower Fairfield County and start looking for Florida license plates - you'll see plenty of them now.
Raising the tax simply won't work any better than the now infamous "Yacht Tax" experiment that caused several American Luxury Yacht builders to fail, costing untold jobs, and collected -0- tax dollars.
Posted by: Lefticus | June 26, 2009 1:12 PM
These Democratic senators are out of their minds. The wealthy have had whopping tax breaks over the last two decades. Reagan cut the top federal income tax from 70% to 35% in 1987. Weicker cut the dividend and interest rate from 18% down to 4% in 1991. Yet, these senators are OK with crushing working families with services cuts and property tax increases in order to protect the wealthy. They should all quit the Democratic party or face primaries.
Posted by: Lefticus | June 26, 2009 2:20 PM
The Democratic senators who voted against this budget should either quit the party or be primaried. Wealthy earners have had tremenduous taxbreaks over the past few decades. In 1987 Reagan cut the wealthy federal income tax rate from 70% down to about 35%. In 1991 Weicker cut the state interest and dividends tax from 18% down to 4%. This shifted the tax shortfall from the cuts on to the backs of low and middle income families. A Democratic senator who cannot vote to restore some fairness in the state tax code is hammering working families, during an economic depression, in order to shield the wealthy. It is shameful.
Posted by: James D. | June 26, 2009 2:36 PM
What's the alternative to raising taxes on the very rich?
It's eliminating dental care for our most vulnerable adults. It's taking away child care slots that are allowing mothers to get back into the job market. It's cutting job training programs and closing vocational schools when more than ever we need to put people back to work. It's raising bus fares that hit the working poor the hardest. It's closing libraries and dozens of family resource centers.
Does that really seem like the morally right thing do? Anyone suppose that's what Jesus would do???
I seriously doubt that anyone writing on this blog will be affected by taxes on $500,000-plus wage earners. And guess what: odds are very high that we never will. Why, then, do so many feel the need to defend this tiny minority of very-well-to-do, when health and jobs and lives are at stake? And forget that mush about how we'll be driving away all the rich taxpayers. They didn't leave after the new income tax in 1991 (though we were warned that they all would!) and they won't be leaving now.
Let Governor Rell veto this budget. Then override it. Case closed.
Posted by: Carolyn | June 26, 2009 3:15 PM
My husband and I earn a combined salary of approximately $1.25 million/year. We studied hard, saved hard, and worked long hours to get where we are. We are proud of our success.
And we strongly resent people in our positions who, out of selfishness or greed or insecurity or who knows what, are unwilling to pay a few thousand more dollars a year in taxes to help those less fortunate than themselves.
In our family, we have know these words:
"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." -1 Timothy 6:17-19
And we act upon them.
Posted by: Otis Mamed | June 26, 2009 7:51 PM
Carolyn, Those of us who work week to week to feed our kids and pay our bills really appreciate you speaking out. We are willing to pay our share. Thank you for letting us hear your voice and that you are willing to help too! God bless!
Posted by: Carolann | June 28, 2009 4:00 PM
Carolyn, you have made me proud to be a human being. I don't make anywhere near what you make but I would certainly be willing to pay my fair share based on a progressive income tax, which is what we've always needed in this state.
If we a progressive income tax we wouldn't have the need for such a high property tax. It's a known fact that those with more money have a much higher percentage of disposable income - they get to make a choice of whether or not to save money after paying normal and necessary bills (like food, electrictiy, and rent). Those who make much less barely get buy enough to pay those bills and then after paying taxes are lucky if there's anything left to "save".
The rich have already been given years of tax breaks under the Bush administration. It's time to give back what they never should have gotten in the first place.
Carolyn, you probably represent "most" people with high earnings. I don't want to believe that the majority in your income bracket are greedy. Maybe it's just the Governor herself - either greedy or worrying about her rich friends - not sure which.
Posted by: Darlene | July 17, 2009 4:24 PM
Republicans want to cut spending. Democrats want to increase taxes on the rich. The wealthy had a free ride under the Bush Administration. I understand the republican governor's point of view to cut spending, however, if she had this concern years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess now.
The bottom line is that the government will have to spend carefully and competently to stimulate the economy.
Nonprofit organizations like the one I formed are suffering because the democrats and republicans cannot come to an agreement about the budget. We, Patrick's Academy, Inc. depend on contracts that we have earned through hard work. Imagine receiving an IOU letter instead of the actual funds. Our program initiatives have been put on hold until the budget is passed.
My goal in life is to do well by doing good. I am trying to keep the faith.
Please consider donating to Patrick's Academy, Inc.
visit us on the web at www.patricksacademy.org