Giegler: The Only Thing Compromised Connecticut’s Future

From: The News-Times, September 6, 2009

As Connecticut’s budget impasse dragged throughout the summer, compromise became the word of the day. The governor, staring down the barrel of a tax-hungry Democratic supermajority, backed off previous no-tax-increase pledges and made a modest offer to raise taxes. In return, she asked for spending reductions that would force government to live within its means, and a sales tax cut that would create an estimated 8,000 jobs and give relief to middle class families.And yet, the Democratic majority in Hartford passed a budget that was anything but a compromise.
The budget they passed is balanced on the backs of employers, despite having lost 26,000 businesses over the last two years.

It raises taxes, by nearly $1.5 billion, on the very same businesses and investors that we need to put the 70,000 Connecticut residents who have lost their jobs back to work.
Their plan also increases state spending in spite of the fact that nearly every family in our state has had to slash their own budgets.

The budget spends $1.55 billion more in 2010 and 2011 than the state did over the previous two years. Not a single meaningful reduction in government spending was made.

Yes, the Democrats claim they made “cuts,” but saying so doesn’t make it true.

Over the last two years, the state of Connecticut spent $36.01 billion. In the next two years under this budget, we’ll spend $37.56 billion. You do the math.

To fund this increase, the state borrows $1.3 billion, further cementing our status as the most indebted state in America.

The non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis estimates that the borrowing done in this budget will lead to a $5.9 billion deficit two years from now.
Instead of working to strengthen our future, this budget ensures we’ll be in the same predicament just a few years down the road.

Even the sales tax cut contained in this budget is a sham. It is linked to a “trigger” that cancels the sales tax reduction if state revenues dip by even 1 percent of current estimates.

Given that the decline in state revenues is projected to continue, the tax cut is unlikely to ever take effect.I voted against this budget because it violated common-sense:

- You cannot tax employers and expect them to hire more workers.
- You should not increase spending when you cannot fund the programs you already have.
- You cannot borrow your way out of a budget deficit.

But more than vote against this budget, I helped to offer an alternative. The plan I joined my caucus in proposing was balanced by reducing government to a size the taxpayers can afford in these tough times.

It protected jobs and positioned Connecticut for future growth by not raising taxes.

And while this budget made difficult choices to achieve spending reductions, important social services for those hit hardest by the recession were spared: community health centers, HUSKY, ConnPace, Home Care for Elders, AIDS services, and others.

Most importantly, my budget alternative made no cuts to municipal aid.

The Democrats summarily dismissed this proposal and derided it as “protecting the rich” because, unlike their budget proposal, it refused to raise taxes on anyone, including businesses or high income earners.

Despite the slings and arrows of this class warfare crowd, my anti-tax stand was NEVER about protecting the rich.

I opposed tax increases and fought to prevent them because the people the majority was seeking to tax are job creators, and I have no more important priority than to ensure that every Connecticut resident who needs a job can find a job.

I could not and would not support a proposal that raises taxes on those we’re relying on to reduce unemployment, wealthy or not.

Unfortunately, despite the opposition of me, my caucus, and the governor, the majority’s budget will become law.

The only thing compromised in this budget is Connecticut’s future, for which we will pay dearly in years to come. It contains tax increases that have made our state an even worse place to do business.
Job losses will mount and businesses will continue to close, straining state coffers and assistance programs.

At the same time, we’ll be handed a bill for the money the state has borrowed to fund a bloated and inefficient government that we cannot afford.

God help us when that bill comes due.

State Rep. Jan Giegler (R-138th) represents Danbury and New Fairfield in the General Assembly.