| For example, while it is intended to limit state spending, it has, in reality, driven up state debt.
And while the wording of the question the voters actually approved was very simple and logical - having "a limit on state expenditures" - the real application of the spending cap is a morass of complex accounting.
Furthermore, since the enactment of this Constitutional provision, some politicians have suggested that it means something that the voters were never asked to support - banning the people's elected officials from ever creating new or expanded public services, even when the people want their elected officials to do so.
But, there is yet another little known permutation to this provision that most people do not know.
I sometimes get questions from people asking, if Democrats are in the majority, why we do not simply go ahead and approve a budget that contains the things that we believe in. It may seem to some that we are only giving lip-service to wanting to fund education, health care and property tax reform, when the legislature does not vote to do this.
The answer is that one of the practical effects of the constitutional spending cap is to give nearly total power in the budget process to the Governor. As the Christopher Keating, in the Courant, described,
Democrats can vote on taxes without Rell's consent, but not spending. All budgets proposed this year - by the Republican Rell, legislative Republicans and Democrats - exceed the state spending cap, which cannot be topped without Rell's permission.
When he refers to the Governor's "consent" to vote on a budget, he is referring to a part of the Constitutional spending cap that says that the legislature cannot approve a budget over the spending cap unless
the governor declares an emergency or the existence of extraordinary circumstances
And it is not just this year that the state is over the spending cap. It is never under the spending cap.
In fact, every year going back into the Rowland administration, the governor (both Rowland and Rell) has approved a consent to spend over the cap. This means that all of the budgets of the state, containing the services that public expects - and that elected officials of both parties have approved - have, in practicality, been over the cap.
And, what this means that that, the "governor's declaration" is not really reserved for "an emergency or the existence of extraordinary circumstances", but has, as a practical matter, become a normal part of Connecticut's budget process.
So, instead of the budget process being:
1. The Governor proposes her budget.
2. The Legislature votes to approve a budget.
3. The Governor signs the budget.
It is now:
1. The Governor proposes her budget.
2. The Governor gives the legislature permission to vote on a budget she agrees with.
3. The Legislature votes to approve this budget.
4. The Governor signs the budget.
Even if the legislature has the votes to override a Governor's veto, it still cannot even vote for a budget unless the Governor says it is allowed to.
This greatly diminishes the role of the legislature in our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
Matters are made worse by a precedent set by Gov. Rowland in 2003. In the budget crisis of that year, Rowland approved an executive order in which he unilaterally gave himself the power to operate the state without a budget approved by the legislature. His act was allowed to stand because the legislature did not challenge its legitimacy.
This creates a "heads I win, tails you lose" advantage for the Governor over the legislature in the budget process. If the Governor really wants to, she or he can tell the legislature, "I will run the state without you until you see fit to approve a budget I like." This is exactly what Rowland did in 2003.
Combine this with the fact that the legislature cannot even vote on a budget without the Governor's permission, and the Governor can go so far as to say, "I will not even let you vote on a budget until it is one that I like."
As the John Rowland scandals proved, it is never a good idea to have nearly unfettered power in the hands of just one person. As John Dalberg-Acton said:
absolute power corrupts absolutely
In spite of this, our state continues to operate under a system in which the most important decisions - those on the budget and state bonding - are vested in a single, nearly all-powerful individual.
I believe strongly that elected officials should work hard to make government more efficient and cut real waste. And a common sense limit on the spending of taxpayer money makes sense.
But, preventing a repeat of what happened in the Rowland era will necessitate that legislature re-asserts its Constitutional responsibilities in our system of checks and balances, and most especially in the budget process. |
MLN is powered by