The House Democrats proposal to make Southwestern Connecticut pay more to Hartford makes me think of George Orwell's dystopian novel Animal Farm where ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
I wish the proposed tax would affect me. I'm not too concerned about the personal well-being of the affected demographic should the new tax become law. What concerns me is some of the language legislators use to promote and defend their proposal. People making a lot of money won't "miss an extra $20 or $30 per week;" "the most fortunate should chip in more," etc. Is this how serious public policy should be presented? I can see Napoleon (George Orwell's pig that is) saying a lot of these same things. Why weren't legislators thinking about the most needy and the programs that serve them in 2005 and 2006, for example, when tax receipts were surprising Hartford to the upside?
Connecticut's original income tax was temporary. A half percent higher and still here... Hartford legislators don't understand what we meant by voting in a balanced budget amendment. It's not "good economy - big spend, bad economy - big tax." Balanced-budgeting presupposes rainy-day and trust funds. You build reserves during good years to cushion the lean years. Fiscal policy should be counter-cyclical, not reinforce the downturn (or stoke the bubbles). We're faced with a state budget deficit of $8 to $9 billion over two years. I'm not sure trying to carve a few more chunks out of the golden goose (Southwestern Connecticut) is an intelligent policy. It may also not be workable; like big corporations, the rich are quite good at avoiding taxes they view as confiscatory.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Crazy like a fox?
Crazy like a fox?
Maybe the Republican delegation in Hartford has it all wrong; the best course of action in the face of the Great Recession is not responsible budgeting but rather a game of chicken with the federal government. Maybe the Democratic Congressional majority is on to something: put on a good poker face and spend like its 1999. Taxpayers have transferred almost one trillion (with a "t") dollars to the U.S. financial system (about 8% of GDP) while the states have gotten less than one hundred billion (with a "b"). Maybe the Hartford Dems are thinking that Connecticut can be just as too big to fail than any of the banks. Washington D.C. will have to blink first and give us more bailout money. C’mon Nutmeggers, let’s roll the dice for 2010 ‘cause mamma needs a new pair of shoes…..
Maybe the Republican delegation in Hartford has it all wrong; the best course of action in the face of the Great Recession is not responsible budgeting but rather a game of chicken with the federal government. Maybe the Democratic Congressional majority is on to something: put on a good poker face and spend like its 1999. Taxpayers have transferred almost one trillion (with a "t") dollars to the U.S. financial system (about 8% of GDP) while the states have gotten less than one hundred billion (with a "b"). Maybe the Hartford Dems are thinking that Connecticut can be just as too big to fail than any of the banks. Washington D.C. will have to blink first and give us more bailout money. C’mon Nutmeggers, let’s roll the dice for 2010 ‘cause mamma needs a new pair of shoes…..
Re: Conflict of Interest
Re: Conflict of Interest
I read with interest Messrs.’ Freundlich and Shalit’s back-and-forth regarding a possible Pavia appointment. Although it feels like our entire political system has become one big conflict of interest with politicians engaging in pay-to-play, setting up their relatives as lobbyists, nominating their girlfriends for important legal jobs, taking private sector jobs the second they leave office, writing tell-all books, etc one of the most important concepts for a loyal opposition is allowing a winning politician – particularly those in executive roles – the chance to name their own team.
Federal, state and local bureaucracies are very entrenched and it has become increasingly difficult for executives at any level to implement their agenda. They must be allowed to name people they are comfortable with. Historically, most executive level politicians find out that one or two of their loyal and friendly appointees were a mistake. The more successful Presidents, governors and mayors have quickly shunted their pals off to the side and brought in more capable technocrats for damage control and policy implementation. Short of a glaring and obvious problem, Mayor Pavia’s appointments should be supported until they prove us otherwise. Executive level public servants should at least be given the full opportunity to succeed.
I read with interest Messrs.’ Freundlich and Shalit’s back-and-forth regarding a possible Pavia appointment. Although it feels like our entire political system has become one big conflict of interest with politicians engaging in pay-to-play, setting up their relatives as lobbyists, nominating their girlfriends for important legal jobs, taking private sector jobs the second they leave office, writing tell-all books, etc one of the most important concepts for a loyal opposition is allowing a winning politician – particularly those in executive roles – the chance to name their own team.
Federal, state and local bureaucracies are very entrenched and it has become increasingly difficult for executives at any level to implement their agenda. They must be allowed to name people they are comfortable with. Historically, most executive level politicians find out that one or two of their loyal and friendly appointees were a mistake. The more successful Presidents, governors and mayors have quickly shunted their pals off to the side and brought in more capable technocrats for damage control and policy implementation. Short of a glaring and obvious problem, Mayor Pavia’s appointments should be supported until they prove us otherwise. Executive level public servants should at least be given the full opportunity to succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)