"Moderate" Democrats Want To Cut State Spending

So frustrated with this kind of maneuver (0.00 / 0)

We see this from nearly all of the Republican legislators, particularly the ones from my corner of the state. "We must cut state spending," they soberly intone. (And remember, these are very serious people who have the sort of business acumen that other legislators just don't get.)

But we never, ever hear these legislators call for specific cuts in spending. We need to drastically reduce spending? Where should we start? See Foley, Tom and Frantz, Scott for examples of this. (In fact, the only specific spending cut that I've heard or seen Scott Frantz call for is to eliminate the Citizens Election Program. Why a multimillionaire self-funded candidate for reelection would oppose the CEP really puzzles me.)

Of course, these fiscal conservatives are quite happy to accept state funds for projects in their districts.

---

by: OGDem @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:33:53 PM UTC

Just a thought (0.00 / 0)

 I just recieved my completed Federal and state income tax.Even if I added my municipal Property Tax bill(I own a small Cape)  to what I paid in fed and state income tax  the sum  of those expenses is LESS THAN HALF the cost of my families health insurance coverage.

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 23:31:24 PM UTC

Here's one reason why ... (4.00 / 1)

Connecticut's insurance commissioner has greenlighted just about every rate increase requested by the health insurance industry since 2006! -- and this ALSO affects the cost of benefits for state and city workers.

The current commissioner, Tom Sullivan, is a former senior VP at Specialty Risk Services, a subsidiary of The Hartford insurance company. He was appointed by Jodi Rell in 2007, and it's his job to approve rate hikes.  So he approves them -- he pretty much gives the industry what it wants.

Dick Blumenthal and state rep Jim Shapiro are fired up about this. See here, here and here.

Add up the total amount the state pays in health insurance premiums for its employees, and you'll see a lot of room for cost-cutting there. I bet if we adopted a state-wide single payer system, we'd save millions.

These health insurance costs hit municipalities too -- town employees, teachers, etc. -- which comes straight out of your property taxes.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 00:10:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's too bad you feel this way (0.00 / 0)

As a liberal Democrat I loudly applaud any Democrats who are advocating a managed budget that starts with budget cuts.

I get tired of the knee-jerk "let's tax billionaires" idiocy that pervades so much of the Democratic chatter.  The fact of the matter is that the State is spending too much and getting nothing in return.  Nor are the legislators particularly compelling in offering solutions.

Your so-called "revenue enhancement" is another word for tax and everyone, rich and poor are sick to death of the bullshit.

Paying more and more and more to protect the interests of an entrenched and worthless staus quo will sink us all.

We need deep healthy cuts that start in the legislative branch and spread across the highest tiers of the State bureaucracy.

It would be a thing of beauty.

- krasicki
http://region19.blogspot.com

---

by: krasicki @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 23:45:45 PM UTC

That's stupid ... so say two nobel prize winners (4.00 / 1)

You don't get out of a recession by cutting government spending -- that's how you WORSEN a recession.

Read Nobel Prize Winning economist Paul Krugman's article "Fifty Herbert Hoovers":

But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers - state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation's economic future.

Joseph Stiglitz, another Nobel Prize Winner, also recommends spending our way out of a deficit, while raising taxes on those most able to afford it -- the wealthiest wage earners.

[T]ax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families.

Once the crisis passes, then it's time to cut government spending, and cut taxes on the wealthy if you want to.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 00:25:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly. But Christine Stuart just parrots right-wing memes (0.00 / 0)

Stuart is the kind of right-wing journalistic parrot that WNPR's John Dankosky peppers his programs.  

Though Dankosky devoted one program to the lack of African-American journalists in the state, he would have none of inviting on his program an African-American journalist and commentator.  Also rejected by Dankosky: inviting on Sarah Littman, a progressive.

Pathetic.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 01:25:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please stop attacking Christine (0.00 / 0)

the"moderate" label is universal, not right-wing, and it's unfair and counter-productive to attack the best new media journalist in Connecticut

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 14:36:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How is that? (0.00 / 0)

Just how is it that conserva-Dems attack mainstream Democratic leadership in the General Assembly and they are somehow "moderates"?  I'm sick and tired of these hacks, and I'm tired of pandering to some who are just not as horrible as the others.  We deserve way better than this.  And Christine Stuart should be called out when she uses loaded language such as calling conservative Dems as "moderates", as if criticizing Democratic leadership somehow makes on sensible, or "moderate", while being in the strong mainstream of our party puts one in the "liberal wing".  It's garbage, and I'm not willing to give a free pass to conservative journalists, or journalists who try to keep cozy with conservatives by pasting unfair labels on Democrats.  No way.

It's conservative-lite "journalists" like Christine Stuart who always get the media play, because they criticize Democrats.  She was on CPTV's Friday night program regularly, paired with the hideous Ken Dixon each time, spewing out the right-of-center criticism of Democrats that is her hallmark.

It's that solid right-wing press corps that is so infuriating.  When is Al Robinson going to be asked to come on WNPR or CPTV?  Tell me the last time a true progressive like Sarah Littman was asked to come on and give her views?  The answer: never.  All we get is the Christine Stuart types who are predictable critics of Democrats and safely leave Republicans out of the cross-hairs.

Perhaps you think that's the best we can do, but this state deserves far better.  

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 15:23:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CTNJ (0.00 / 0)

Better than nothing, which is increasingly what we're getting from other media outlets in Capitol coverage.

In fairness to TH, I think the site also represents an existing disparity in press outreach efforts between the parties / ideological groups. Most journalists seem to have the attitude that if something was worth covering, an interested party would have invited them to cover it. And that is reflected in CTNJ's coverage.

Republicans and conservatives don't have anything to do with most of their days up there but communicate with the press. Getting a particular journalist to hear a different mix of voices is an achievable task, and entails convincing the caucuses to step up their game. Getting an individual journalist to recognize deficiencies in their own work is much more challenging -- I'd submit to TH that, with all due respect, he has never sucessfully done it.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 17:11:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who's "TH"? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 18:00:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 18:14:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oooops....sorry. my bad. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: thomashooker @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 01:23:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

However.. (0.00 / 0)

would any level of effort with Hearst's Ken Dixon result in fair treatment of Democrats?  Of course not.  This is the guy who scrubbed from his article any criticism of Jodi Rell for her failure to land a single cent of either federal transportation or education funds in the recent competitions.  Not a word.  He's the guy who declared that he doesn't want to see a Democrat elected governor.  He's the guy who said, "if you like this downturn, thank a Democrat."  He's the guy who declared Jim Himes "a forty two year-old blank slate."  Will any level of effort with that hack result in fair treatment of Democrats and representation of Democratic points of view?  Of course not.

Are we really going to get any sort of fairness from Christine Stuart when she permits a frontpage oped by a Yankee Institute guy who writes that his propaganda organization is "non-partisan"?  No reputable journalist would print garbage like that.  How 'bout Hearst's Neil Vigdor?  We've tried to get him to be fair for years.  But it's no use: he's dedicated to twisting the truth; that's what he does for a living.  Check out his article on voter registration in Greenwich.  Even though the numbers clearly showed that the drop in the percentage of Republicans was almost exactly mirrored in a rise in Democratic registration, Vigdor simply lied and wrote an article saying that it was independents who were gaining strength.  The truth?  independents had barely budged as a percentage of the electorate.  He just flat-out lied.  With no repercussions to him.  He's still there.

Now you tell me why we should keep quiet and let these folks masquerade as reputable journalists.  Silence just permits them to do more of this with impunity.  It was good for Jonathan Kantrowitz to call out Stuart for absurdly referring to that handful of conserva-Dems as "moderates".  Her suggestion was ridiculous, and she needed to be called out.  And in the future as well.

No more free passes for right-wing hacks.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 01:23:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Christine is one of the best reporters we have in CT (0.00 / 0)

She is by no means a right wing mouth piece, and I have no idea where you even get that idea.

---

by: Kim Hynes @ Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 15:48:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If state legislators and the governor ... (0.00 / 0)

really wanted to cut costs, they'd start by firing Tom Sullivan, or by passing a law that allows the attorney general or the legislature to negotiate lower health insurance premiums for state and city workers.

Better yet, if we had a state-wide single payer system, we'd probably save even more.

The governor and state legislature, I guess, are afraid of pissing off the insurance industry. That's why it's hard to take their cost-cutting BS seriously. They know how they can cut costs -- lower health care and health insurance costs -- but they don't do it.  

We're subsidizing Aetna, Anthem, etc., as well as the big drug companies. And our elected officials do nothing about it.

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 00:32:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"deep healthy cuts" (0.00 / 0)

Can you give concrete examples of exactly which deep, healthy cuts you support?

---

by: chele @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:21:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd like to see the state sell surplus property (0.00 / 0)

and I'm not just talking about monstrous parcels like the Norwich State Hospital in Preston and Seaside in Waterford, but the possibly hundreds of parcels that are one acre or less.

I live in the only house on a dead end street surrounded by flood plain; next to my lot is a 1/4 acre lot that used to have a house on it, but was demolished in the early 90's because it was in the flood plain.  For some inexplicable reason, the state owns it and pays PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes)money to Norwich and its current assessed value is 21,000....for a plot that is worthless, meanwhile there is a 4 1/2 acre site across the street that is privately owned and is assessed at 5,000 bucks.  I have to add that there are two of these 1/4 acre lots on my street and it is only 500 ft long.

I have asked my state rep about this and she told me that the state won't sell it.  Just think of the possible effect of the revenue stream, many parcels sold for whatever they could get for them plus no more PILOT money being spent.  In addition, the local municipalities will benefit because they can get more tax dollars from the land because PILOT only reimburses at 40% unless it is a prison, which is reimbursed at 100%.

Now that's an idea that's doable.

---

by: snorwich @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 13:37:49 PM UTC

confused ... (0.00 / 0)

If the land is worthless, no one would buy it from the state, so the state wouldn't make any money on the sale.

If the state is paying PILOT at a 40% rate, it's paying PILOT on a value of $8000 (right?). This subsidizes whatever Norwich pays to manage the area in and around that flood plain, which may be not much.

More importantly, though, it seems like the state is effectively paying the town to keep this flood plain as a flood plain. That makes sense to me. Otherwise, you get flooding.

This also lowers your property taxes by whatever amount the state is paying.

I think having community-owned land, and community-owned coastal areas, is really important. I would be hesitant to sell it off.

(Check out Raj Patel's "The Value of Nothing" where he writes extensively about how governments have privatized public lands -- a process called enclosure -- at great cost to the community.)

 

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 14:28:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Throwing good money after bad (0.00 / 0)

That's my opinion on parcels such as the one that abuts my property.  I would buy it and it would maintain it as would the owner of the property that abuts the second 1/4 acre parcel.  It is covered by brush and even worse a lot of bittersweet vine that kills trees and literally pulls them down.  Every year I have to go out and cut these vines so that they do not pull down trees on the power lines, and since I am the only house, I would be a low priority during a storm.

Community owned land is great in some cases, but not in others.  In this case, it is two pieces that are neglected and are too small to be of any benefit to the community.  They do not abut the river and therefore could not be used for recreation.  Furthermore, community owned land requires community resources which are in short supply these days.

My idea is not a blanket solution, but it sure beats flushing more money down the drain.

---

by: snorwich @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 15:11:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the town should use the money it gets from the state to maintain it (0.00 / 0)

Have you tried calling your dept of public works to tell them what the problem is?

I don't understand why you would want to own it -- if the land is worthless and requires work on your part. Wouldn't YOU be throwing good money after bad?

Also, flood plains ARE a benefit to the community. They prevent flooding.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 16:12:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you saw the lay of the land here, you would understand (0.00 / 0)

I would like to own it so I could clear the brush and increase my gardening space.

BTW, public works is well aware of both plots because the garage is 1/8th of a mile up the street and a couple of the town guys take their lunch at the other 1/4 acre lot.

You might find it interesting if you checked your towns grand list to see how much property the state owns, and you just might find yourself asking " why does the state own this?"

Like I said earlier, it is not a cure all for the states fiscal crisis, but it sure could help a bit.

---

by: snorwich @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 01:25:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So Called "Moderate" Democrats . . . . (4.00 / 2)

Those who want to cut spending in a depressed economy such as the one we have at the present time once were called Republicans. I am less familiar with issues at the state level; but if you look at the national scene, I am curious to hear what label some better informed Nutmeggers would attach to the likes of Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and (our very own Junior-soon-to-be-Senior Senator who used to call himself a Democrat) Joe Lieberman. . . .

I once thought Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy was a terrific idea; and it has reaped some benefits.  However, many of the log jams we have seen in Washington are the result of recruiting so-called fiscally conservative Democrats. [Republicans, on the other hand -- having achieved their Starve the Beast agenda -- recently have focused more on wooing Tea Baggers than on fixing the broken system they have long sought.]  Those who welcomed the removal of Glass-Steagall, fight to retain the Bush Tax Cuts, and agreed to save Wall Streeters without serious penalties are not moderates. Either they are on the take -- which is the not-so-polite way of saying they thrive on pay-to-play politics -- or else they are wolves in sheeps' clothing, like Joe.

State office holders should be assessed in similar terms;  it behooves us to consider the track records behind the labels. Voters beware! Fooled once, shame on you; fooled twice (or more) . . . .

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 15:19:45 PM UTC

If we had Public Financing for Congress (0.00 / 0)

Challengers who do not actually answer to special interests (including Wall Street) would have a shot at taking down incumbents.  That's all I'm sayin . . .

---

by: Kim Hynes @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 16:36:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rachel Maddow refers to Dems like Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson as ConservaDems (4.00 / 1)

Most of the ConservaDems used to be or still are a part of the D.L.C. (Democrataic Leaderhship Council).  The D.L.C. is not an official arm of the Democratic Party, but they are the group that was formed in the mid-1980's to get a Democrat into the White House.  Bill Clinton is their only success story in that endeavor.  They call themselves "centrists" or "moderates" but they really are corporatists.

Howard Dean was once a member of the D.L.C., but when running for Prez in 2003-04, he realized how far to the right they were leaning that he ended up rebuking them.  They were leaning so far to the right because the Repubs were racing over the cliff into fascism and the D.L.C. were trying to stay an arm's length away from them, but they refused to see where the Repubs were actually heading.  Dean tried to tell them that the "center" was left of where they and the Repubs were heading.  The D.L.C. mantra is "we're like Repubs but not as bad".  I sometimes call DLC Dems "closeted Republicans".

One of the main reasons why I don't like Dan Malloy is that he's linked to the D.L.C., and since he was a public supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Prez race, I think he has never severed ties with the D.L.C..  The D.L.C. developed the triangulation method, which most people call deception.  Bill Clinton was a master at it.

There is no sure fire way to eliminate them or weaken their presence further in Congress.  Kim is right that public financing of Congress would help, but as long as SCOTUS equates money as free speech, quality but underfunded candidates will always be at a disadvantage.  Their only hope is to use innovation and ingenuity, like Paul Wellstone did, to have a shot at winning.

---

by: Larkspur @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 18:15:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]