CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Malloy Open To Conversation on Business Taxes as GE Puts One Foot Out the Door

by | Jun 9, 2015 5:33pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Business, Economic Development, The Economy, Labor, State Budget, Taxes, State Capitol

Christine Stuart photo Gov. Dannel P. Malloy will sit down later this week with CBIA President and CEO Joe Brennan to discuss the tax package that was approved last week by the General Assembly and then quickly panned by the business community.

Malloy Spokesman Devon Puglia confirmed Tuesday that the governor plans a one-on-one meeting with Brennan.

Brennan sent a letter to Malloy and legislative leaders Friday asking for a sit-down to discuss what he believes are the long-term consequences of the proposed tax increases added to years of bad policy when it comes to economic development.

At a follow-up press conference the day after the legislature approved nearly $2 billion in tax increases, Malloy said there may be an opportunity to clarify some of the corporate taxes included in the budget. However, he didn’t say specifically whether that meant changing them or simply explaining them.

While GE, Aetna, and Travelers have all released statements criticizing the budget, Brennan said those aren’t the only corporations concerned about the impact of the tax increases. He said he’s had private conversations with numerous other large companies that have raised the alarm bell internally.

For each of the state’s major employers, there are “hundreds and hundreds” of smaller companies and thousands of employees that rely on their business, according to Brennan.

“If you take any one large employer out of Connecticut, that has a devastating impact on small business,” he said.

Fresh off its eighth-place ranking in the newly released Forbes Fortune 500 list, up from ninth the previous year, Fairfield-based General Electric has confirmed it is considering taking its business elsewhere.

“We have formed an exploratory team to look into the company’s options to relocate corporate HQ,” the company said Tuesday in a statement. “It is too soon to comment further on the process.”

GE CEO Jeff Immelt sent an email to the company’s Connecticut employees last week lamenting 10 “tough” years trying to maximize profits in the state.

Citing the tax package recently endorsed by the legislature — which Gov. Dannel P. Malloy indicated he’s unlikely to veto — Immelt said the proposed tax increase of approximately $1.9 billion will be the second highest in the state’s history behind the $2 billion tax hike passed in 2011.

“GE is a major employer in the state,” Immelt wrote. “We purchase $14 billion in goods and services from Connecticut companies. Despite this, we have had a tough past decade in Connecticut. Our taxes have been raised five times since 2011, while support for our strategies has been uneven. I believe we should pay our fair share and that all of us should give back to our communities. But, we can compare Connecticut with other states where small and large businesses have a better environment to thrive and compete.”

A 2011 article in the New York Times credited GE’s “extraordinary success” on an “aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.”

One of the business community’s bones of contention involves stateside reporting concerns addressed in a new unitary reporting requirement that would crack down on multi-state companies that shift their profits to states with no corporate income tax.

For at least 20 years, the state legislature has introduced combined reporting legislation that some say will close corporate tax loopholes and allow the state to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.

But others, like Brennan, say it will drive business out of Connecticut.

One of the states ready to pick up Connecticut’s economic development slack is Georgia, where Gov. Nathan Deal jumped on the news of GE’s northern discontent.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution Political Insider blog quoted Deal’s top aide, Chris Riley, saying the governor called the company to let executives know Georgia is “open for business.” It was reported that Deal’s office said the governor would be speaking with Immelt this week.

GE Spokesman Seth Martin would not comment on the status of discussions with Deal or the leaders of any other states.

GE already has a presence in Georgia that includes 5,000 workers in the global headquarters of its energy management business in Cobb County and other divisions, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.


(86) Archived Comments

posted by: LE 2015 | June 9, 2015  8:06pm

We need the governor and the leaders of both parties in the meeting. Malloy will say he met with Brennan and did all he could. Just like he did not raise taxes.

posted by: Greg | June 9, 2015  8:15pm

CT doesn’t need GE, nor does it need Aetna, Travelers, or any of the unnamed smaller employers represented by the CBIA.  Those big greedy corporations can make good on their threats to move and take all those six figure jobs with them.  Good riddance!  If they want to value their bottom lines over a decade of budget uncertainty, tax increases for both them and their employees, increasing regulations, high energy and costs of living then they can go somewhere else!

We don’t need those who don’t want to pay their fair share.  We don’t need new, greedy corporations coming here either if they don’t agree with the fiscal and social policies coming out of the Capitol either.  We don’t want companies to recruit folks to come to CT who don’t appreciate the quality of life afforded by the high taxes and costs of living either.  Don’t want to pay more to live here?Don’t come!

posted by: art vandelay | June 9, 2015  8:26pm

art vandelay

The smartest thing Malloy & Democrat Legislative Leaders can do at this point is start over from scratch & listen to what Republicans have to offer.  Nobody will blame them for eating “Political Crow”.  They have to do what’s best for the state, and that is cut the projected budget and lower some taxes.

posted by: andygayle | June 9, 2015  8:39pm

They should all leave.

posted by: shinningstars122 | June 9, 2015  8:40pm


I hope someone can hack the benevolent Jeff Immelts’s emails and possible reveal that GE has been soliciting sweeter offers, actually they should be called tax payer subsidies, from other states for some time.

The budget is just a perfect public relations ” gift” from the Legislature who sadly are clueless when it comes to making the right decision at the right time.

The unitary reporting tax is a legitimate issue, and fair, but Connecticut is not in a position to make it happen.

I hear Cuomo is all over moving GE to Armonk as I type… then no one needs to sell their homes in Greenwich and take a big hit.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 9, 2015  9:05pm

After the CT budget passed, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt sent an email to all CT GE employees stating that GE was considering leaving CT.  He attached a .pdf document to the email:

“Connecticut Fact Sheet”.

http://c1.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Connecticut Fact Sheet.pdf

WOW!  We suck!

posted by: JH_1 | June 10, 2015  5:27am

Wow.  Some of the comments on here are really ignorant.  Some of you continue to talk about the big, bad & evil corporations in CT and across the country as if the employees are all members of the evil “1%”. 

The truth is these evil corporations are made up of mostly middle class employees.  Having a white collar job doesn’t mean you’re rich or in the 1%.  You don’t have to work a blue collar job to be middle class.

If these companies go, so do hundreds of thousands of very good middle class jobs.

posted by: justsayin | June 10, 2015  6:05am

@shinningstar I guess that weak letter by CBIA/Brennan was not as awful as you opined. CBIA is doing the work for the business community.

posted by: oldtimer | June 10, 2015  6:41am

Malloy and the dems will do nothing to appease the businesses in this state, especially the corporate giants like GE. Like all good socialists they despise Capitalism and will spend their lifetime taking from those businesses until they destroy them.

posted by: GBear423 | June 10, 2015  6:48am


The man is killing the iconic businesses that Connecticut was once proud of.  Chased away Guns, chased away Hospital buyers, now chasing away GE and Insurance Giants.  Connecticut deserves all of it. We knew Malloy would be detrimental to this State’s economic success and yet we gave him another 4 years to tax our State into the ground. Reap it.

posted by: Politijoe | June 10, 2015  7:11am


Why is it so many Americans are ready to sell their country to the lowest corporate bidder in this foolish race to the bottom?

GE is one of the most profitable conglomerates in the world and like most, a significant part of their success is an aggressive anti-tax strategy that influences legislation with, what can only be described as questionable accounting practices that shelters profits offshore. American corporations reap enormous gains in these elaborate tax evasion schemes. Currently they are sitting on two-plus trillion dollars in profits while their executive compensation packages remain at historic highs and their share of federal revenues remains at historic lows. The issue in Connecticut is in fact the new unitary reporting requirement that would crack down on multi-state companies that shift their profits to states with no corporate income tax.

Corporations have exploited their workforce,  and extorted the common good in the name of job creation and profits by pitting states and nations against one another. Its time Americans begin to recognize this slight-of-hand for what it is. We have to be willing to consider a more comprehensive and realistic look at our current fiscal situation. One that that takes into account this short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating practice that obscures what we all believe….  corporations should be working for America, not the other way around.

posted by: toserve | June 10, 2015  7:52am

Statistics apparently prove almost anything anyone says about CT and business.

posted by: CT Jim | June 10, 2015  8:07am

Art Vandelay amazes me. No matter how many times he posts something right from the crazy side of town he just seems to find others like his “eat political crow” comment. Why Art? Why eat crow? Did you read the editorial from William Cibes siting reports showing that corporations pay little taxes in this state? And are you advocating that corporations dictate tax policy for ALL??? Sorry Artie that’s fascism. Didn’t work for Germany during WWII and not interested in seeing it here. At times I thought you saw the world thru blinders. I was wrong, you see it thru a straw. Fitting you picked your fake name from a show that one of it’s characters used as a phony ID to do nothing. Not to mention the irony of you identifying with a show that hasn’t had a new idea in more than 17 years. I’ll wait for your narrow minded onslaught of insults have fun.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 10, 2015  8:57am


You cited and OP-ED from the Hartford Courant (hardly an unbiased source) to rebut GE’s position????


The dearth of critical thinking skills in most of the voters in this state is why the state is imploding.

posted by: whatsprogressiveaboutprogressives? | June 10, 2015  9:01am

The modern day democrat will forever be the societal problem creator instead of the problem solver. Anti-business budgets, pro government expansion, the minds of the modern day progressives are very disturbing. Look at the some of the recent attempts and successes of the democratic party here in CT: 1. early release of bad inmates so that they can slaughter innocent people. 2. Money proposed for tuition assistance for illegal immigrants in the most recent budget. I don’t know if it was taken out or included and passed. 3. Drivers license for illegal immigrants. 4.Re-interpretation by state officials of monies allowed to be NOT included in the budget to circumvent the state spending cap. This all the while our governor is proposing a super-de-duper lock box for transportation infrastructure improvements. If they re-interpreted the constitutional spending cap money, who says they aren’t going to do that with this lock box(Art V.- I believe you made this excellent point in another post).
5. Trade licenses rose 100% 4 years ago by the party for the working class.
6. The Busway. I only need to mention it’s name.
The largest tax increase 4 years ago followed by apparently the second largest tax increase with the budget passed last week. When is enough,enough? And the only answer the Marxist/socialists have is that the evil corporations are taking advantage of the people and that they should pay their “fair share”. What CBIA and business leaders need to do is put out specific data showing what kind of taxes a business pays to the state and compare it to another state elsewhere. Prior to the biggest tax increase 4 years ago, businesses were already paying high taxes, now two huge tax increases later can only spell doom for CT. You Marxists need to come have some other argument other than the continual corporate greed mantra. Let me give you a hint: the phrase may have “get spending under control”. Just saying….

posted by: oliviahuxtable | June 10, 2015  9:08am

Politjoe, you are my hero.Corporation’s are doing what major league sports teams are doing….and without a national policy to temper them, the state that gives up the most from their taxpayers, wins.
Hey CT JIM…please lay off Art’s name…it’s a great one, taken from the funniest show in TV history. And still popular in reruns. Our Art may not espouse the views we do, but his opinion is valued.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 10, 2015  9:10am


Riddle me this…

If the Hartford Courant Op-Ed you cited was actual REALITY, then a reasonable person with reasonable critical thinking skills would go and look for the data showing the mass influx of businesses moving INTO Connecticut WITHOUT the promise of ANY tax subsidies.

That is not the case.  Not only are businesses not moving into CT, they are moving OUT to states that actually HAVE low corporate tax rates.

Since reality doesn’t support the Op-Ed’s position, if you are intellectually honest, then you can only conclude that the Op-Ed author is full of #*$^ and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt’s “Connecticut Fact Sheet” is the actual reality in CT.

Pay no attention to what people say…watch what people do, therein lies the truth and reality of Connecticut; a once great state slowly committing suicide.

posted by: whatsprogressiveaboutprogressives? | June 10, 2015  9:12am

@Jim. Reading a Bill Cibes editorial claiming that CT businesses pay next to nothing in corporate taxes has absolutely no credibility. Remember, he in addition to Lowell Weicker’s administration were the architects behind the famous lie, “having an income tax is like pouring gasoline on a fire.” They were Lowell’s words but Cibe’s was backing it. He then flowed into a nice cushy,created job as president of the state university system. A system that as far as I’m concerned,under all governors since Weicker, has gotten completely out of control. I’ll get back to you on Cibes pension.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 10, 2015  9:28am


Forbes – June 6th, 2015

<a >“Texas Lawmakers Cut Taxes By Billions, Keep Spending In Check”</a>

THIS reporting on Texas is reality, the Hartford Courant Op-Ed you cited on CT taxes is just more Pink Unicorns and Rainbows propaganda in support of the failed Malloy fiscal agenda.

The exodus out of CT will be of biblical proportions once this budget sinks in.

posted by: MyOpinion | June 10, 2015  10:14am

shouldn’t Malloy, the Democrats and Republicans met with the CBIA before constructing such an awful new tax law?  Just thinking out loud!

posted by: RicB | June 10, 2015  10:24am

Greg, are you being facetious? Or are you really that jaded against large companies and capitalism in general. Aetna employs 6700 people in Hartford, Travelers employs 6400 in Hartford and GE employs 5700 in Fairfield. As to not paying taxes , what do you think these compainies pay in local property taxes to their respective cities. Not to mention the taxes that 18800 employes pay to their respective home towns and cities, income taxes etc. Go ahead and believe the socialist propaganda that corporations do not pay any taxes. It is just not true. Besides it is well documented that Connecticut overall has the highest tax burden of any state out of the 50. Our taxes are getting to be ridiculous and must be reined in by spending CUTS not spending increases. I could go on much longer about the insane Democratic Dictatorship but I will leave that for another time.

posted by: rpk31 | June 10, 2015  10:29am

@ CT Jim What Bill Cibes fails to mention is that in those states with no personal income taxes, many businesses are pass through entities, meaning that the profits of the business are taxed at the rate of the owners, which in those states is 0%. THAT is pro-small business policy. In CT no matter what you do your profits are getting taxed, thanks to Mr. Cibes and his former boss.

Mr. Cibes also focuses his argument on tax rates for only a couple of notable taxes, failing to acknowledge that the backlash from businesses right now isn’t because of our corporate tax rate, but because of retroactively canceled tax credits, changes to long-established tax laws and uncompetitive policies like unitary reporting. Those have nothing to do with tax rates, so they won’t show up in E&Y’s analysis, but they are the drivers of our anti-business reputation.

Of course, Bill Cibes also thought implementing a state income tax would put CT on solid fiscal footing for the long term, so we really shouldn’t be surprised at his half-baked “analysis”.

posted by: rpk31 | June 10, 2015  10:37am

Furthermore, you are 100% wrong about the Third Reich, it was ENTIRELY state controlled. See this peer reviewed article (http://gdc.gale.com/archivesunbound/archives-unbound-economy-and-war-in-the-third-reich-19331944-the/): “While the strict state intervention into the economy, and the massive rearmament policy, almost led to full employment during the 1930s, real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938. Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. In place of ordinary profit incentive to guide investment, investment was guided through regulation to accord with needs of the State.”

And before 1937 the Nazi economy was based on currency manipulation, protectionism, multiple bilateral trade deals, and the massive confiscation of private property (of political enemies of the Party). To be sure, large businesses backed Hitler’s rise to power for fear of the Communists, but they were quickly cut out of any economic decision making shortly after the Nazi’s consolidated power. Political hacks ran the Nazi government, not corporations.

posted by: art vandelay | June 10, 2015  10:38am

art vandelay

@CT Jim,
I read William Cibe’s editorial and would expect nothing less from the father of the Connecticut State Income Tax.  Mr. Cibes is brilliant in his explanation as to Connecticut being 27% lower in business taxes compared to other states.  He is superb in using statistics to solidify his ideology that the private sector support an ever growing centralized government.  Statistics and numbers can be crafted to support one’s beliefs right or left.

I remember In 1991 Mr. Cibes citing statistics how Connecticut would prosper economically by instituting an income tax.  I remember him stating that Connecticut would now have a solid non fluctuating tax base to rely upon.  Connecticut’s future budgets would now be on a solid foundation.  How wrong he was. Today Connecticut’s budget now relies on projected gambling revenues, and taxing everything under the sun.  The budget is more volatile then ever before.

CT Jim, You’re asking me to believe what Mr. Cibes says?
Not in a million years.  If our business tax policy was so good. Companies like BMW, Honda, would be knocking on our doors to build plants in Connecticut.  I don’t see big companies knocking on Malloy’s door clamoring to expand in this state.  What I see is Malloy bribing companies to stay.
Sorry your thesis hold no water.

posted by: art vandelay | June 10, 2015  10:51am

art vandelay

@ Politijoe, Shiningstars122 & CT Joe,
It’s so easy for socialist progressives like yourselves to show big corporations the door if they don’t like Connecticut’s business tax policy.  Your argument is so Marxist in claiming that large corporations and their executives never pay their fair share, yet you never state exactly what a “fair share” constitutes.

Little do you realize or care that a multitude of middle class good paying jobs are intertwined with these large corporations.  You could care less about the mail clerks, maintenance crews, security guards, secretaries, and others who would be on the unemployment line if these corporations move.  All you care about are the 7 figure salaries the executives of these companies make.  Little do you realize that these executives are worth every dollar they earn.  They are ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the company.  Allot rides on their shoulders.  Case in point Eastman Kodak.  The executives failed to realize the explosion in digital photography even though Kodak owned the original patents.  Executives believed digital photography was a passing fad, and film could never be replaced.  How wrong they were.  The executive decision to sell the rights to digital technology and stick with film bankrupted Kodak putting thousands out of a job and turning Rochester, NY into a ghost town. 

Connecticut would be wise not to show GE and other corporations the door.

posted by: art vandelay | June 10, 2015  10:58am

art vandelay

@Politijoe, Shiningstars122 & CT Jim,
Could you please explain to me how Connecticut’s economy would prosper if every millionaire living in Greenwich and Fortune 500 company you despise left?  I’d really like to know.

posted by: bohomom | June 10, 2015  11:28am

Malloy disappoints—got elected as a “pro-business” Democrat and then screws the major employers in the state to appease the unions?? Now he’s defaulting to Democratic typical behavior, giving all to the unions without regard for the rest of us…I don’t have a problem raising taxes on the wealthy, but then to mess with their employers too? And let’s not forget how many middle-class people rely on GE and Aetna, Travelers, etc. for their livelihood. This is penny-wise, pound-foolish, Malloy should go down to Fairfield and beg Jeff and GE to stay. Not smart Malloy!!

posted by: GBear423 | June 10, 2015  11:54am


Does CTNJ apply their commenters policy only to a select few?  We have CTJim posting a personal attack against another commenter, insulting the person’s intelligence, poorly attempts an implication he is a Nazi, and even goes into a rant about his screen name choice… then he dares him to respond with personal attacks, as if what he has written was an exchange of ideas…  Come on? Seriously that passes?

posted by: art vandelay | June 10, 2015  12:37pm

art vandelay

When a liberal progressive socialist cannot defend his or her position, they always resort to attacking the source or utilizing the politics of personal destruction.  These are two tactics outlined in Saul Alinsky’s book 12 Rules for Radicals which is the socialist’s Bible.  You might recall that Hillary Clinton’s senior paper at Wellesley was on Mr. Alinsky’s work.  She even went as far as requesting a personal interview prior to his passing.

I may not be the best or most eloquent writer, but I do believe I get my points across without mincing words.  Thanks for your support.  It’s MOST appreciated.

posted by: Truth_To_Power | June 10, 2015  12:42pm

GBear: I believe Christine does all the ‘censoring’. I’ve questioned this before and she replied with reasons like ‘you didn’t provide any links to prove what you were saying’ and ‘I don’t have time to research every opinion and we can get sued if we allow statements that are inaccurate’ or something along those lines.

All while allowing unsupported ‘facts’ and ‘data’ from the likes of Politjoe & shingingstar, etc. You might recall her recent post that she can do pretty much whatever she wants because she owns the business.

It’s great to have a forum where readers can express their views to some extent, but if you’re looking for consistency and pure objectivity, expect to be disappointed.

posted by: Greg | June 10, 2015  12:48pm

@RicB:  The fact you can’t tell if my comment is satire or not says a lot about the way this governor and legislature think about the business climate in the state.
Considering the attitude of many folks in state government and here on these boards is “Don’t like it, leave”, I rest my case.

GE has no obligation to stay here.  Travelers, Aetna, The Hartford, Cigna, et al have no obligation to stay here (unless they got a sweet UTC-ish welfare check).  No business has any obligation to stay here, or move here for that matter. 

If any business has some moral obligation to stay, grow, or move here I’d love to hear it…PJ and SS, looking at you for this one.

posted by: art vandelay | June 10, 2015  1:04pm

art vandelay

Another factor nobody has mentioned is the fact that the GE Complex in Fairfield was built in the mid to late 70’s.  The complex in relative terms is old and tired.  ith Malloy’s new tax increases would be the perfect opportunity for GE to seek greener pastures.

Again if Malloy & the Democrats were smart (which they aren’t) they would offer incentives like First Five to remain.  They did it with UTC so why not GE.  Could it be that UTC is in blue collar Democrat territory i.e: East Hartford while GE is in the heart of white collar Republican?  It would be wise for all concerned NOT to call GE’s bluff.

posted by: CT Jim | June 10, 2015  1:35pm

So let me get this straight….I come on here and ask Vandelay why he didn’t read William Cibes editorial and his response was because he doesn’t believe what I believe then it’s not true. lol Then GBear comes to his comrades defense and whines about me making fun of Vadelays fake name and the fact they tend to believe just like Germany did in WWII that for some reason that Iv’e hurt their feelings??? And his answer to it is to have me censored???? LMAO You just can’t make this stuff up!!!

posted by: cseeger | June 10, 2015  1:59pm

@Biff Winnetka: I am assuming that your choice of Forbes article is a tacit admission of admiration for Texas and its policies? If so, I would strongly disagree that Texas is a state to admire. Texas is a state that exists off federal largesse and the poaching of business from other states. Nearly 45% of Texas’ state budget comes in the form of federal dollars, close to 40% of Texans do not pay taxes (compared to close to 20% in CT) and Texas is still—despite the apparent “Texas Miracle”—a net taker from the country at large. They get back more money than they send to the federal government compared to CT getting $1 back for every $10 we send. I agree wholeheartedly that CT needs a better business climate. There are much better role models, though. Colorado, Massachusetts, and Minnesota are three states that consistently rank in the top 10 for business AND as great places to live and raise a family. Texas consistently ranks low on livability and the HDI having some of the highest levels of poverty in the country and having the dubious honor of being #1 in the country in adults without a high school diploma. We need real, sustained change in CT, but no one should be like Texas.

posted by: Politijoe | June 10, 2015  2:16pm


@Art: I can’t believe I’m attempting to engage your myoptic thinking however, in the hopes of sharing some perspective with others I’ll respond to your questions.

You questioned the claim that many large corporations and their executives never pay their fair share and ask exactly what a “fair share” constitutes…... Art, this has been asked and answered several times however you are wedded to your beliefs and not the truth and refuse to accept the reality. In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for 33 percent of all federal tax revenue. Today, despite record-breaking profits and unprecedented executive CEO salaries, corporate taxes bring in less than 9 percent of federal revenues. The marginal tax rate in the 1950’s was close to 90%, today billionaires pay less than the guy who cuts their lawn or makes their bed. It’s not the AMOUNT paid that matters, its the ratio of taxes paid relative to income.

You then state: Little do you realize or care that a multitude of middle class good paying jobs are intertwined with these large corporations.  You could care less about the mail clerks, maintenance crews, security guards, secretaries, and others who would be on the unemployment line if these corporations move…... Art, are you paying attention AT ALL?
This is precicley why were sounding the alarm because of the wholesale exploitation and erosion of the middle class at the hands of the American Corptacracy

Finally, you cite: All you care about are the 7 figure salaries the executives of these companies make.  Little do you realize that these executives are worth every dollar they earn….... Art, I’ve heard your incomplete, right-wing libertarian alternate theories of reality before but really?  How about the CEO’s of Goldman Sachs or Bank of America did they earn their multi million dollar compensation packages in the tens of millions in spite of tanking the global economy? Did they deserve multi-million dollar increases in the aftermath?
How about Robert Fuld His tab for eight years of CEO work came to $466.3 million. You may still remember the name of his company. It was called Lehman Brothers. In 2008, it set a record as history’s largest bankruptcy, setting off the nuclear reaction we now call the financial crisis and cementing America’s future as a socialist state for giant banks and corporations. Which aside from the obvious contradiction this poses for your arguement, really just exposes your willful ignorance regarding middle class economics, the deficit and our nations fiscal affairs.

posted by: SocialButterfly | June 10, 2015  3:15pm

@politijoe: You are the last person in the world who should accuse art vandelay of myopic thinking. Your idol Dannel Malloy and his captive Democratic General Assembly created this problem so don’t berate Art for calling ‘a spade, a spade.’

posted by: Truth_To_Power | June 10, 2015  3:19pm

Art: I’m sure you’ve noticed by now that the longer the response from PolitJoe, the less likely that an actual answer to your question will be included.

You’re myopic, etc, but in response to your question (asked repeatedly on these posts) to define his idea of ‘fair share’, all he does is tell you what was paid when, ad nauseum, but NEVER tells you, either via a percentage of income or via an actual number, what he thinks ‘fair share’ means.

You asked how it would benefit ANYONE in CT if the corporations and the millionnaires left, and got no specific answer at all.

This is PJ’s modus operandi: all hat and no horse. He’ll go on and on and on and saying absolutely nothing that directly responds to the questions posed to him.

An old expression comes to mind: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****. PJ uses the latter and hopes we all see it as the former by accusing us of being ‘simplistic’ etc.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 10, 2015  4:22pm

I am fascinated by the critical thinking skills, or lack thereof, of people like @cseeger.  @cseeger’s line of reasoning is a great example of why I don’t hire A-students and prefer to hire B and C students.  The brilliant @csseger gets buried in minutia and completely misses the glaring realities staring him in the face.

@csegers argument is basically that Texas, and states like Texas aren’t worthy of their success.  Somehow those successful states must have cheated the system while poor Connecticut is getting hosed playing by the rules.

While @cseeger dwells on BS statistics, he completely misses/ignores the FACTS on the ground. US census data, moving company data…. HUGE numbers of individuals and businesses are moving to Texas.  Texas is REDUCING state taxes and reducing the growth of state government.  People and businesses see Texas, and fiscally sane states like it, as a better deal than CT so they move there.

@cseeger reminds me of the stuffy, out of touch professor in the Rodney Dangerfield movie “Back to School” who is totally clueless to the real world and is schooled by Rodney Dangerfield’s character who has nothing but real world experience.

posted by: gutbomb86 | June 10, 2015  4:26pm


@politjoe - you’ve done a remarkable job of trying to raise the level of debate here from kindergarten to post-graduate. But I’m afraid you’re sharing ideas with a pack of angry people who 1) don’t understand much about the economics of the last 100 years and only believe what clown-college grads are telling them on tv, and 2) are too belligerently partisan to read your comments before they start responding.

You’ve answered the question repeatedly and they still can’t grasp it. Lost cause. They’re trying to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

posted by: cseeger | June 10, 2015  4:39pm

Biff, I’m not sure where you’re getting all that from. I haven’t denied—or even mentioned—that businesses and people are moving to Texas. You are correct when referencing US census data showing many people flocking to Texas. I am also not certain why you think that Texas does “not deserve its success.” My point was that Texas is not a good model to follow. Texas has a special combination of large amounts of flat land for development and is fortunate to be in on the energy economy. I named three other states that do a great job attracting businesses and people, but also do much better at caring for citizens as well.

Also, just for the record, I’m referencing US Dept. of Labor and IRS statistics when I speak to tax and federal dollars. The reason Texas can afford to keep taxes so low for business is that they get to make up the shortfall via federal dollars—that’s an enormous advantage not all states have.

Consequently, none of what you’ve said is a rebuttal of anything I have said, nor does that change the fact that CT needs change now.

posted by: le2011 | June 10, 2015  4:40pm

There is a fin line between fair taxing and over taxing. I do not remember companies like GE , Aetna and Travelers ever complaining publicly. I believe the dems have gone to far this time. If the original budget Malloy proposed was passed I do not think companies would be complaining.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 10, 2015  4:56pm


@cseeger, and others like him, just can’t bring themselves to admit it.  His head would probably explode if he were ever to credit Texas and the more successful states for their policies of KEEPING TAXES AND SEPNDING UNDER CONTROL.

Instead its nonsense like… flat land for development, energy economy, Federal subsidies, blah, blah, blah.  All of that is noise.

Lower taxes and lowers spending, like the great role model states are doing, and CT would take off like a rocket.

@cseeger and his ilk just can’t betray their ideology and admit it.


posted by: Doug Hardy | June 10, 2015  5:05pm

On another thread, @Biff mentioned that “businesses are not charities.”

This is very much a true statement and I thought I would take a moment here on behalf of all the writers and editors at CTNewsJunkie to remind our commenters of this fact. Businesses - like ours - are not charities.

As an example, we’ve read through and posted 40+ reader comments on a single story today. We get several hundred a week. In fact, it’s costing us money now to have someone moderate comments so that we can keep this community moving along, and throughout the week it basically means we are leaving other news uncovered.

To wit, we would love and very much appreciate any financial support you folks can give us. Here is our donations & membership options page.

There are a variety of options there - please by all means check it out and select one, click through and send the email to me, and I’ll send back a payment method via email. Something that works for you.

The Capitol Gains Club is new and we’re in the process of signing on restaurants - the idea there is we’ll provide paid members with a mailer of deals on a monthly basis for restaurants and other businesses around Hartford and hopefully elsewhere in the state.

What this site really needs is recurring support from our readers. The advertising portion of our revenue does not cover all the costs associated with running the website and staffing the capitol throughout the year.

One more time, here is our donations & membership options page.

Thanks everyone for your consideration as we head into the summer months and a municipal election season this fall.
-doug & christine

posted by: Politijoe | June 10, 2015  5:44pm


@Gutbomb:  The frustrating piece is regardless of how many times or ways one presents the answers, conservatives are simply not interested, although, what they are interested in is complaining, mythological perceptions of themselves and false patriotism. You summed it up perfectly.

@Truth to power: for what its worth, you stated I provide “unsupported facts”  thats news to me because even a cursory google search would confirm the data I share. However, if you care to back that statement up then by all means choose a piece of data I have shared and support your accusation. If Im incorrect I’ll own it.

Your silly question how it would benefit ANYONE in CT if the corporations and the millionaires left didn’t get an answer because its simply a false argument.

With regards to your ridiculous statement I have not defined the idea of ‘fair share’, but merely cite percentage of income.  The reason, as I’ve stated, is that its not about the AMOUNT PAID. Get that out of your head. Its about the ratio of taxes paid relative to income. I will provide a very rudimentary example: when someone earning tens of millions annually pays 13% and a teacher or fireman who earns $50-100k+ annually pays 28-35% that is an example of taxation relative to income. Another rudimentary example is when corporations accounted for 33% of all federal tax revenue forty years ago and now in spite of record-breaking profits and unprecedented executive CEO salaries, corporations contribute less than 9% of federal revenues. Thats taxation relative to income.

Add to this the ratio (there’s that confusing word again) of CEO salaries to the average worker and what used to be, and still is in much of the world a difference of 30-40 times. However, in the U.S. is now close to 300 times the average worker’s salary. Now consider the fact middle class wages have stagnated and in some cases fallen behind over the last thirty-five years, two unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription drug plan and huge tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest Americans and a clear pattern begins to emerge. This pattern indicates why we have significant erosion of middle class economics and fiscal challenges both on a federal and state level.

I realize that data, context and complicated terms like ratios are like kryptonite to conservatives on this list, however it will require some level of critical thinking to comprehend the broader dynamics and economic patterns at play to actually participate in a viable dialog and a democracy.

posted by: oldtimer | June 10, 2015  6:06pm

politijoe… your defense of Malloy and his democratic cabal is specious. Four years ago, he inflicted “shared pain” among the citizenry with the largest tax increase in history and the promise that it was an honest budget that would solve the state’s fiscal woes and put us on the road to recovery. It worked so well that this year he proposed the 2nd largest tax increase in history while ignoring the spending cap. When his own comptroller told him it violated state law, he punted to Looney & Co. to “deal with it”. If the CEOs of those giant corporations you abhor, ran their companies the way Malloy runs this state, there’d be no business to tax because they’d all be bankrupt! As Einstein said, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” All of the democratic/socialist policies that Malloy aspires to have never worked. But that won’t stop him from trying nor you from defending him.

posted by: cseeger | June 10, 2015  6:18pm

Biff, I’m not sure what you think my ideology is given that I’ve not espoused a fondness for any and that I’ve agreed with you regarding keeping spending under control and how miserably CT has been performing for decades. I’ve also listed three states that I felt were good role models, to which I will add two more: Utah and North Carolina.

However, it seems you’re not interested in an honest conversation regarding the matter. I am going to excuse myself from the conversation as it seems you are only interested in attempting to browbeat me with your dogmatic viewpoint than engage in conversation.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 10, 2015  6:30pm


I agree that Texas is no place for a soft, New England Progressive, but for tens of thousands of others moving there, Texas is just what the doctor ordered as a refuge from insane states committing fiscal suicide and other acts of petty tyranny against their citizens.

“One of the greatest things my husband, Chris Kyle, ever did was move our family to Texas.”—-Taya Kyle

“10 Reasons Why You Should Move To Texas”


Low Taker vs. Maker Ratio
Low Taxes
Low Cost of Loving
Cheaper Real estate
Low Unemployment
Weak Unions
Good Schools
Friendly People
Respect for the 2nd Amendment
Very Little Snow

posted by: art vandelay | June 10, 2015  7:51pm

art vandelay

First off, I’m not angry, I’m concerned and worried. I’m concerned the left and progressives have taken control of this country and state. I’m concerned that 50 years ago Connecticut had a relatively small government, and prosperous private sector economy. 

I’m worried that the current welfare state created by a population demanding more government services, far outstrips the private sector economy capable of supporting it.  The state is now at the point where the institutions and people supporting the welfare economy can and no longer willing to support it.  Our Governor and Legislature will now do anything and everything to support this new economy since its where their power base comes from.  I’m not an angry Conservative, just a concerned one.

FYI My degree is in U.S. Economic History with a minor in Political Science, so I DO have a sound understanding about our nations economy.

I believe I do understand the liberal interpretation of the term “Fair Share”.  It’s not a specific number but a proportion of a person’s income.  That definition has yet to be answered.  I do believe ones “Fair Share” might be palatable to a progressive if a uniform flat tax with no deductions were enacted.

Yes I agree that Warren Buffet pays less tax than his secretary, and he has admitted it on numerous occasions.  Mr. Buffet is complying to the current tax laws.  Is it fair? It all depends on what ones interpretation of the word fair is.

posted by: whatsprogressiveaboutprogressives? | June 10, 2015  8:35pm

Per my own homework assignment, Mr Cibes pension is $125,917.32. This from the following website:http://transparency.ct.gov/html/searchPensions.asp
He served for 8 years as Chancellor of the state university system(2004 - 12) and was also Gov. Weicker’s budget aide/administrator. Unless he held a state position prior to the Weicker administration and after it,but before the Chancellor job, he served a wopping 12 years in state government. And for that a $125k annual retirement salary. No wonder why those corporations don’t pay enough in taxes! There are plenty of the “beautiful people” to take care of. Unbelievable.

posted by: shinningstars122 | June 11, 2015  6:12am


@Art once again you mince my words to serve your own one sided perspective.

I do not want to chase Fortune 500 companies out of CT quite the opposite I want them to and more importantly their employees to prosper.

With the reduction of corporate tax rates over the last 30 years has GE instituted a profit sharing benefits for it’s employees?

It would be nice to know what the average raise was at GE in CT for all employees over the last five years was, as they raked in billions each year in profits.

What Mr. Immelt is actually engaging in is a form of extortion to the residents of Connecticut…give me what I demand or we leave.

It would be one thing if GE’s business was truly suffering due to be located in CT but it is a completely another when Mr. Immelt’s only motivation is is own personal compensation package, which was $37.4 million in 2014.

That is obscene @Art.

@DougHardy I am an active monthly donor and I do hope all my fellow conservative posters are as well.

posted by: Politijoe | June 11, 2015  6:40am


@Oldtimer:  I would suggest you read the responses once again. I recognize that the state has a fiscal challenge, although factoring in several variables, comparatively Connecticut is in better in shape than some states and worse again than others. With that said, Its disappointing to read that you misunderstood my point regarding a broader perspective that highlights the underlying causes of our federal and by default, state budget challenges.

Over the last thirty-five years there have been a number of disastrous federal policies that have significantly contributed to our current fiscal outcomes and middle class stagnation.

We simply cannot make informed choices on where to land when standing on the ground. We must be willing to consider a thirty-thousand foot perspective before we jump.

posted by: toserve | June 11, 2015  10:44am

“Statistics apparently prove almost anything anyone says about CT and business.”
It’s curious and sad that following the application of some “critical thinking” the conclusion/response was:
“You cited and OP-ED from the Hartford Courant (hardly an unbiased source) to rebut GE’s position????
The dearth of critical thinking skills in most of the voters in this state is why the state is imploding.”
By example, you’ve proven your assertion of a dearth of critical thinking. Your agenda colors everything you read, leading to misunderstanding, which apparently is less important than the opportunity to promote the agenda. It’s mirror time for you my friend.

posted by: SocialButterfly | June 11, 2015  10:44am

GE already has a work-force of 5,000 employees in Cobb County, Georgia, and
Gov. Nathan Deal told GE that the Peach State is “open for business” for more jobs.

posted by: Politijoe | June 11, 2015  11:12am


Why is it we hear endless conservative rumbling about Malloys tax policy which is often framed within the context of Socialist and Marxism. However, when the issue of corporate taxation is introduced and facts demonstrate the corporate share towards federal revenues has fallen from 33% to a low of less than 9% these same conservatives are silent on the issue. When the issue of tax breaks that benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class has been introduced, conservatives are again silent on the issue. The same happens when comparing the percentage of taxation between millionaires and billionaires to middleclass teachers, fireman and bus drivers. When the enormous gap between executive CEO compensation is compared to the average worker, once again, nothing but silence.

Regardless of ones political persuasion these issues should alarm all conservatives and move them to action or at the very least, to the recognition of the determental effects these issues have on the American middleclass and economy. Instead all we seem to have is more silence.

posted by: oldtimer | June 11, 2015  11:49am

Politicos… Your vague, wordy response doesn’t explain why another huge tax increase is needed to solve the problem. And if you studied the history of economics you’d realize it will only compound the problem because dems are socialists who can’t help but overspend other people’s money. Beyond that there’s the socialist belief among elitists like Malloy that was spelled out so clearly a few years ago when ABC’s Charles Gibson interviewed Obama. When Gibson pointed to the fact that raising the capital gains tax has never brought in additional revenue, Obama quipped that it had nothing to do with revenue but to make “the rich pay their fair share”. With democratic socialists often times it can be about punishing “the rich ” and taking something they don’t have. Oh and for the record CNBC, a liberal newS service, rates Connecticut’s economy 47th! Due totally to some 25 years of control by a democratic legislature now abetted by for the last 6 years by the worst governor in our history.

posted by: oldtimer | June 11, 2015  12:41pm

Politijoe… Are you that naive that you believe corporations pay taxes? Those “taxes” they pay are simply passed along to the consumer, you know, we the people. Taxing corporations is great political cover for elitists like Malloy. At least with the uninformed voters who pine for such things.

posted by: Greg | June 11, 2015  1:01pm

PJ- CT doesn’t exist in a vacuum nor is it a convenient microcosm of the broader country and the systemic issues that exist.  It’s one of 50 other sovereign states that independently decide policy and as such compete with each other for resources.

I disagree with you when you characterize CT’s issues as “by default” in the context of the rest of the country.  Decisions made under the dome have consequences and for decades each individual decision made on policy impact whether an individual or business wants to move here, stay here, or move out. And by the numbers given in survey after survey the consensus is nobody wants to come here and a great many want to go.  Are we not perceived as one of the worst states to do business? Are we not one of the highest cost-of-living states in the country?  Are we not one of the highest tax burden states in the country? Energy costs?

Are we not? And what do we get for the privilege of such high costs and taxes? 

You want to rail against GE for their convenient (and legal btw) tax maneuvers, fine.  You want to talk about the share of corporate taxes compared to other revenue streams at the federal level? Fine, throw it out there as you have.  Corporatocracy, regulatory capture, corporate personhood, bailouts…et al I’m actually there with you a lot of that.

BUT…don’t pretend CT can go ahead and legislate themselves to an alleged moral high ground when there are 49 other states competing with us for our people and companies.  Competition exists whether you or I like it or not, and in a lot of our opinion the CT legislature and King Malloy have all conveniently forgotten that one little fact.  People move between states, and they do all the time. They don’t come here.

Really though: Why should GE/Aetna/Travelers/name-company-here move to, stay, or expand their business in CT instead of the Carolinas, Georga, Texas, or elsewhere? Again, by the numbers, nobody wants to come here, very few want to expand here, and even more are thinking of leaving.

posted by: Politijoe | June 11, 2015  2:20pm


@Oldtimer: Am I to assume then, based on your responses that we shouldn’t expect or even be concerned about the fact corporate tax contributions have fallen from 33% annually to below 9%. We should simply accept the fact we have an inequitable taxation system that benefits the wealthiest at the expense of the middle-class. We should also ignore the fact middle class wage earners are bearing more of our nations financial burden while incurring higher risks than everyone else and that increased revenues and reduced spending are misdirected approaches that would not balance our federal and state budgets. Really, thats your position?

What you’re suggesting therefore is in spite of the fact we are experiencing an enormous productivity boom combined with the largest corporate profits in history, we should continue to fund the most expensive healthcare system and the costliest military on the globe with historically low rates of taxation, .....all of this without expecting corporations, the wealthiest and the millionaire CEO’s to contribute just a few percentage points more as they were in the Clinton era. That is what your suggesting as a viable fiscal solution?

If its even possible for you or other conservatives to address these issues specifically, please do so without the tiresome descriptors of “Liberal, Socialist, Marxist, etc..”  it demonstrates a woeful lack of creativity and conceptual thinking.

posted by: oliviahuxtable | June 11, 2015  9:16pm

Politijoe: of course you are correct in your argument.  The issue is, though, now that we have defined the problem, what is the answer? Please name a national politician who truly supports the middle class and then demonstrate to us how he or she does that. The problem is the way campaigns are funded. And who do we charge with changing campaign financing laws?  The people who profit from them. What is the answer?

posted by: oldtimer | June 11, 2015  9:57pm

Politijoe… Your comprehension skills are lacking so let me try and simplify. When taxes are raised on a business, they simply pass the cost along to the consumer. The consumer being people like you and me. So it doesn’t matter if the tax rate is 10, 20, 30 or 50 percent, the people that pay are you and me. Also when businesses do well without the red tape burden government imposes, there are profits to be made, even by middle class people like us who have stock investments, perhaps in our pension, 401K and the like. When business prospers we all prosper. Jobs are created and the economy grows. But when socialists like Malloy look to punish business, we all suffer. But that will never stop socialists from trying nor you from defending them

posted by: art vandelay | June 12, 2015  12:16am

art vandelay

There is only one presidential candidate who has committed to supporting the middle class.  It’s non other than Bernie Sanders.  I do give him credit. He’s the only candidate that outwardly admits he’s a socialist.  Hillary, Obama, & Malloy will never admit to being a socialist, but their actions prove otherwise.

posted by: art vandelay | June 12, 2015  12:18am

art vandelay

Your retort to Politijoe’s diatribe was excellent. I couldn’t say it better.  I would love to hear Politijoe’s rebuttal.

posted by: justsayin | June 12, 2015  6:12am

@polijoe, simple answer there is a spending problem. But when you have devise leaders Obama, Malloy who work using race and class rather than real solutions opposition rises. If people saw movement in the right direction they would get on board. There has been none. Leadership and vision for all is lacking.

posted by: Politijoe | June 12, 2015  7:44am


@Olivia:  Thank you for acknowledging the issues and recognizing the fact we are in this fiscal mess in large part because the middle-class lacks adequate representation.

The primary reason for this is the erosion of labor unions, civic organizations and the like. Democrats and moderate Republicans at one time represented the interests of the middle class, however, with campaign funding from organized middle class groups diminishing and in some cases evaporating altogether, politicians who depended on this funding, began to seek it elsewhere.  As such, these same politicians who once represented and legislated for middle class interests are now forced to follow the money and represent those who continue to fund their costly campaigns….namely, America’s wealthiest and corporations.

Olivia, I believe you have hit on the very foundation of these critical issues, that is campaign finance reform.  We must remove the obscene amounts of money that influence our elections, legislation and outcomes that come at the expense of the middle class.

You asked “who do we charge with changing campaign financing laws, The people who profit from them?”............ great question, the unfortunate answer is that we cannot and probably should not expect the monied interests to freely give up their power over our legislative process. Although, they currently have the means and control Americans still have the ONE THING they fear the most….. the sheer number of our collective vote.

If we can first acknowledge these issues as critical and recognize the consequences of falling into the rabbit hole of ideological distractions ( Socialism, Marxism, Hitler, Germany, takers, free loaders, birth certificates, Muslims, on and on)  that is manufactured by the monied interests. Only then can we align our priorities to reflect middle class interests. We can change the current state of affairs overnight. We can restore fiscal balance, return stability to our markets, share the nation’s wealth, strengthen middle class economics, secure our jobs, protect our homeless and veterans and we can do this by ignoring the manufactured distractions, demanding campaign finance reforms and continuing to unite our votes to reflect the best interest of the middle class.

posted by: Politijoe | June 12, 2015  8:01am


@Oldtimer: you stated “it doesn’t matter if the tax rate is 10, 20, 30 or 50 percent, the people that pay are you and me”..........you’re missing the fundamental point. Taxes are not merely a form of government confiscation. They are what we collectively contribute to finance our society and national research, education, infrastructure, healthcare, unemployment, salaries, etc….

So once again am I to assume then, based on your responses that we shouldn’t expect or even be concerned about the fact corporate tax contributions have fallen from 33% annually to below 9%? And in spite of the fact we are experiencing an enormous productivity boom combined with the largest corporate profits in history, we should continue to fund the most expensive healthcare system and the costliest military on the globe with historically low rates of taxation ..... all of this without expecting corporations, the wealthiest and the millionaire CEO’s to contribute just a few percentage points more as they were in the Clinton era.

You also state “when businesses do well without the red tape burden government imposes, there are profits to be made”..... old-timer, you seem to throw around an awful lot of generalizations about taxation, government and business, not to mention the widely overused and very tedious moniker “Socialist”. Why not unwrap your calcified thinking from the flag and simply consider, just for a moment the larger issues being presented. In the meantime, I see no point in continuing this circular conversation with you.

posted by: oldtimer | June 12, 2015  9:43am

Justsayin… Unfortunately, politijoe can’t understand your concept because he believes taxes are the solution. And like any good socialist he believes that businesses and the wealthy should be made to support everyone else. In other words, they detest the American Dream.

posted by: oldtimer | June 12, 2015  1:14pm

politijoe… until you can grasp the basic concept that corporations or businesses don’t pay taxes, PEOPLE DO, there’s no sense in having a discussion. Besides you keep talking about increased taxes as if they’re needed. Again, you fail to grasp the basic concept that Malloy and the dems continue to spend like drunken sailors. With no intention of reigning in waste, stopping the nonsense of politically appointed jobs to cronies, bringing the state workers back to the bargaining table or imposing entitlement reform. Have you seen what Maine is doing with entitlement reform? Check it out, it’s working!

posted by: art vandelay | June 12, 2015  2:09pm

art vandelay

Well said.  Politijoe detests Capitalism. He like all true socialists believe corporate profits should be confiscated by a progressive income tax and distributed to society accordingly how government sees fit. I could be wrong however.

posted by: Politijoe | June 12, 2015  5:20pm


@Greg:I’ve generally found you to be reasonable in your responses and appreciate the fact you acknowledged the underlying issues that are effecting middle class economics absent the silly divisive socialist/Marxism comments. Although Connecticut is a sovereign state with a separate budget, the reality is tax revenue, employment rates, and reserve funds are lower in a majority of states than they were before the economic crisis in 2008. For all states the prospect of further reductions by the federal government, which provides nearly $1 in $3 of state revenue is a constant challenge. States use federal dollars for a range of programs, particularly education, training, research, infrastructure, transportation, property tax relief and critical services such as healthcare, poverty assistance and public safety. The share of states revenue coming from the federal government was reduced in 2012 as the federal stimulus program ended and each states revenues rose. However, for the fourth straight year federal dollars continue to contribute a significant portion to the states coffers, actually more money than at any other time since 1961. In spite of this, four states expected to have less than five days worth of operating costs set aside for unexpected expenses. With that said, state taxes are intricately linked to federal policies, they’re not mutually exclusive. State finances also impact the U.S. economy, state spending and investment account for 3.5% of the nation’s economic output, and states provide about one-third of their local governments budgets. Therefore, we have to address the underlying issues related to federal taxation policies if we want a comprehensive strategy that demands adequate contributions from Americas wealthiest and corporations and begins to restore middleclass economics. If we compare Connecticut with other states economic indicators we find that Ct generally falls within the median range of most economic indicators, in same cases lower and others much higher. Although this doesn’t suggest everything is perfect and improvement isn’t needed in some areas, we should also not adopt an armageddon perspective or define logical data with sophomoric definitions of patriotism and socialist.

posted by: Politijoe | June 12, 2015  5:21pm


Connecticut economic comparisons:

GSP: Rank 24th $53k per capita. Growth 1% last 12 months annually- compared with the national average of 2.0%

WAGES: Rank 5th increase of 3% last 12 months- compared with national average 2.3%

UNEMPLOYMENT: Rank 41st reflecting 120k unemployed at 6.3%- compared with national average of 5.3%

JOB GROWTH: Rank 40th reflecting increase of 2.4%  or 34k jobs added last 18 months. Last 60 months 7.5% increase with 98k added- compared with national average of 11.5%

POVERTY RATE: 11.3%- compared with national average 14.5%

UNINSURED: 9.4% compared with nationally at 14.5%

HOME VALUES: .5% increase last 12 months and up 4.3% last 36 months

COLLEGE EDUCATION: Rank 5th reflecting a Bachelors degree or higher 36.5%

MIDDLE CLASS WEALTH: Rank 1st reflects 30% of residents earn $75-150K annually defined as upper middle class-compared nationally at 24%


TAX BURDEN: Rank 3rd reflected as $2,900 per capita

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 12, 2015  6:16pm


While you try to razzle dazzle everyone with meaningless statistics, you ignore the inconvenient truth of the most POWERFUL state statistic…

CT is at the TOP of the migration OUT OF THE STATE list.

Riddle me this…if all your pink unicorn and rainbow stats have any meaning, why are so many people ignoring them and LEAVING???

Perhaps they’re just not as “smart” as you.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | June 12, 2015  10:51pm

what’s our WEED ranking?


posted by: oldtimer | June 13, 2015  9:18am

Politijoe… Why did you stop your statistical analysis there? Maybe because those are the ones that seem to support your feeble argument? Why not explain to everyone about the Marginal Tax Rate? According to the State Tax Policy at The Tax Foundation in D.C., Connecticut is ranked 42nd. And in case you didn’t know, the Marginal Tax Rate is the percentage of tax applied to your income for each bracket in which you qualify. The more money you make, the higher the marginal tax rate for each bracket. This rate is extremely important for making business decisions. It completely affects how businesses spend… Do they hire more employees… Start new projects… Buy more equipment… Engage in more sales… Grow the business? That being the case there are 41 states that are more business friendly than Malloy’s Sinkhole. Like most of us have been telling you, Connecticut is anti-business and ranks near the bottom!

posted by: Politijoe | June 13, 2015  9:48am


In spite of the stats which clearly indicate Ct ranks about the middle of economic indicators when compared to the other fifty states and is actually not about to fall off an economic cliff, there apparently is at least one conservative who managed to find a chink in the data regarding “the number of people leaving the state” however when we take a closer look at this data it also indicates that, although we excel in some areas, improvement is needed in others, for instance when it comes to those leaving the state or expressing a desire to leave. Ct actually ranks about 40th out of 50. (not the top as suggested) this stat should not be minimized, however, when considered among the other economic indicators shared, it’s also not calamitous either.

The biggest factor, as reported by a Gallup poll and others that residents give for planning to move out of Connecticut is 21% for work or business reasons. This is followed by family or other social reasons at 13%, weather or location 7%, and then seeking a better quality of life or change 12%, school related reasons were 10%, cost of living 12% and taxes…..a whopping 6%. Which means the conservative chicken littles’ once again have it all wrong…. 82% of residents leaving the state are doing so for reasons other than taxes or cost of living.

The top list of outbound states also include about four conservative states, which further invalidates this ideological idea of a socialist agenda and instead demonstrates the incomplete thinking that remains prevalent in many on this thread.
1.  New Jersey
2.  New York
3.  Illinois
4.  North Dakota
5.  West Virginia
6.  Ohio
7.  Kansas
8.  New Mexico
9.  Pennsylvania

posted by: SocialButterfly | June 13, 2015  11:32am

HST: Are you on weed?

posted by: oldtimer | June 13, 2015  12:33pm

Also… With the rosey picture politijoe paints, why are tax receipts down? Why is income stagnant? Why have the entitlement rolls increased? Why do businesses have to be bribed to move to the state? And why would corporations like GE, Aetna and Travelers threaten to leave if we’re so business friendly?

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 13, 2015  5:24pm

Ha!  Politijoe now has to parse the INTENT of people moving away in a lame attempt to make his argument.  He reminds me of Tariq Aziz during the Gulf War.  One line of BS after another.

US Census data for inter-state migration only goes up to 2013. 

In contrast, the private sector can always be counted on for the real deal…

United Van Lines’ 38th Annual National Movers Study

“Northeast Residents Flee For 3rd Consecutive Year” (2014)


“The Northeast is experiencing a moving deficit with New Jersey (65 percent outbound), New York (64 percent) and Connecticut (57 percent) making the list of top outbound states for the third consecutive year.”

And that migration out of CT is only accelerating.

Looking forward to your loquacious data twisting response PJ!

posted by: gutbomb86 | June 13, 2015  6:19pm


@politjoe - It’s nice to see some data from something other than a single moving company. It makes sense. Chicken Littles abound, however, and they can’t seem to let go of the absurd name-calling of “socialist” and “communist” because people disagree with their all-or-nothing, black-or-white, life-or-death perspectives on policy discussions.

Fortunately we haven’t devolved here to calling our friends “fascists.” Because that gets old, just like their use of the nonsensical “socialist” tag. I recommend folks just stop using these tags, because long before CTNJ ever began publishing the USA was a blend of many philosophies of gov’t.

Moving on…

I think Politjoe should charge a fee here for providing so much great research for deaf ears.

I think it’s safe to say that the legislative dems have far overreached - well beyond Malloy’s original proposal in fact, far beyond it - and none of the conservatives in these threads have really acknowledged that. Too busy calling people names.

It appears to me that a lot of lefties are trying to win a moral argument about taxation - there’s clearly an effort to counter the inaccuracies being foisted upon us by conservatives regarding CT’s various economic stats. I think it’s pretty clear that most of what we’re hearing is bunk - but yet it’s being marketed to everyone in CT and now around the country. That’s a disservice to all of us and, frankly, the right-wingers are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. CT will never recover from more than $100M in negative advertising from the Linda McMahon and Foley campaigns on their own.

So once the world believes CT is not a good place for business, the conservatives will really only have themselves to thank.

That said, I’m happy to see a more moderate approach to the budget because, even if GE doesn’t pay much in corporate taxes, it’s just a huge amount of employees who will be displaced and disrupted, not to mention the impact on all their small-biz vendors. It’s reality. CT can’t legislate changes to federal tax loopholes. It is what it is.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 13, 2015  6:40pm

@gutbomb said…

“So once the world believes CT is not a good place for business, the conservatives will really only have themselves to thank.”

No mention of 40 years of democratic general assembly control with massive spending and tax increases.  Malloy of course being the King of the Hill.

Yeah…a small group of fiscal realists can convince an entire country that CT is a bad deal.

Because as Progressives like to believe…everyone other than themselves is just too stooped to think for themselves and act in their own best interests so a benevolent, Progressive government must do it for them.

The state’s data will only get worse, the tax base will shrink further, the deficit will rear its ugly head again after TWO record tax increases, PJ’s arguments will only get more ridiculous, and more people and businesses will continue to move.

Hey PJ, want to bet on a date where the Comptroller announces the state is in deficit, again?

posted by: oldtimer | June 14, 2015  7:33am

The statistics cited by politijoe appear to come from the TEBTR study done in 2013. But he conveniently forgot to mention a note to that study that says the TEBTR rate measures the average tax burden on a business rather than the marginal tax rate. Which by their own admission is a better indicator of the competitiveness of the state’s business tax. Which is exactly why politijoe failed to address either of my two previous posts.

posted by: Politijoe | June 14, 2015  8:29am


@Gutbomb: thanks for taking the time to read the posts without all the ideological judgements and accepting the PEW and Gallup poll stats for what they are, simply data utilized to make informed choices and gain broader context. Unfortunately there are a few chicken littles who upon hearing the sky is actually not falling and Connecticut economic indicators place Ct squarely in the middle of the country, chicken little will dismiss that as progressive rhetoric. Of course when actual data is shared that supports the fact the sky is not falling, this too is dismissed as meaningless BS and randomly compared with a former Iraqi foreign minister?.... seriously you couldn’t make this up.

Ultimately the data was dismissed as Socialist propaganda and stats from United Van Lines was referenced. However, even that data simply validated the other sources. That Connecticut ranks 40th (not first) in people migrating to other states for a large variety of reasons. For what it’s worth, there are 15 other states experiencing the same problem.

In the end, we will always have an uninformed constituency who remain susceptible to manufactured fear-based distractions and who unwittingly protect the interests of the very people forcing them to dig their own graves. Like a societal anchor we must drag them along nevertheless. In spite of these distractions, we have the opportunity to wrestle the power back from the corporations, the wall street gamblers, the casino capitalist and the Washington influence peddlers and demand we realign our priorities to once again reflect middle class values and economics.

posted by: whatsprogressiveaboutprogressives? | June 14, 2015  9:11am

I have a couple of comments to make about various posts:
1. The state of CT is not being extorted by the corporations to stay. If anything, the corporations and ultimately the taxpayer are being extorted and held up by the state. People need to accept the fact that in order for the state to be continually fed it’s large appetite for sustenance it can’t keep taxing all of it’s sources. Businesses will just move to a more business and job friendly climate. You really need to look at it as a auction and CT’s bids are not high enough. Remember the ghost voice in Field of dreams : If you build it they will come. The voice CT dems should be hearing is : If you tax it, they will leave.
2. If calling someone a socialist or Marxist is now offensive, we are in more serious trouble than I thought. Put on your big person paints and stop riding the wave of political correctness, which is a huge reason why we are falling apart at the seams nationally. One of the posters refers to this name calling and then goes on to mention “right-wingers”. Not that I care about that label, and I know I am one. But that example just illustrates the classic hypocritical left and their do as I say, not as I do mantra. If anyone has succeeded at labels it’s the left: assault weapons,big tobacco,big oil, big pharma, the war on women,etc.
3. I equate many statistics cited to what the weatherman may say: Just go outside and see what’s going on! Contrary to many of the statistics cited by the usual democratically-perceived posters( I hope that didn’t hurt anyone’s feelings), talking to people in my daily travels of work yields a lot of discussion about how bad it really is in this state and how they can’t wait to get out. So, I sure our democratic friends can counter with some recent poll
that shows something to the contrary,but for now, I’ll just go out and will more likely believe what I’m hearing during my work travels.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 14, 2015  10:39am

Hey PJ, care to man up and offer a date where the Comptroller announces the state is in deficit, again?

Hint…it will be BEFORE the end of the year.

posted by: Politijoe | June 14, 2015  10:50am


@Whatsprogressive: if you want to rely on anecdotal evidence and conjecture instead of studies/polls by respected institutions then thats certainly your right. If you want to protect the corporations and advocate for a race to the bottom auction instead of sustainable taxation policies thats also your’e right. If you want to rely on sophomoric catch phrases that frame every point, every fact and methodology as socialist, marxism and communist ideology well thats you’re right too. And if you choose to ignore the realities of our current unsustainable taxation policies, military and healthcare spending and the obvious pattern of middle class erosion well that’s also your right to ignore.

However, you’ve simply become part of the problem. If you choose to remain distracted and dismiss the fundamental point that is critical to this dialog….middle class economics, then your acquiescing your own best interests and those of Americas middle class to the very individuals who are perpetrating this masterful slight-of-hand.

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 14, 2015  10:51am

The “facts” that Politijoe and gutbomb conveniently ignore are the record CONSECUTIVE tax increases.

If Connecticut, BIG If, is sitting fat and sassy at the peak of the 50 state fiscal health bell curve, as PJ believes, then WHY was it necessary to enact the two largest tax increases in the state’s history in the span of FOUR YEARS just to make the budget ends meet???  And most believe the state will rapidly be back in deficit.???

Consecutive radical tax increases for a budget that will soon be back in deficit portrays a bleak picture and certainly not the rosy picture Politijoe paints.

I can’t wait for Mr. Lembo to face palm this budget with his next deficit report.

posted by: dano860 | June 15, 2015  8:11am

This is how other States see Connecticut. Not exactly favorable.

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages