Malloy’s “NO TAX” pledge will send Connecticut into the abyss

As a result of Governor Malloy’s gimmick ridden state budget, the candidate who wins the 2014 gubernatorial election will take office facing a projected state budget deficit of $1.3 billion or more.

By using one-time revenues for on-going expenses, purposefully under-funding various government programs and utilizing a series of budget gimmicks, the new 2014-2015 state budget is just about as irresponsible as they come.

The moment Malloy signs it into law he will be creating a budget deficit for this year and a catastrophe in the budget that will follow.

But as irresponsible as Malloy’s latest budget is, nothing compares to the damage that will come with his recent “NO TAX” pledge should he be elected to a second term.  Malloy sealed his fate when he recently told reporters that he would, “neither seek nor accept any further tax increases” in a second term.

Pandering to phantom voters, Malloy has engaged in a George Bush “read my lips” moment.

By making an “ironclad” NO TAX increase pledge, Malloy joins the Republican candidates in assuring that the people of Connecticut must live with a tax system that crushes the middle class while coddling the rich.

As Malloy knows, Connecticut’s middle income families pay about 10 percent of their income in state and local taxes, the poor pay about 12 percent and the rich pay about 6 percent of their income in state and local taxes.

Instead of pledging to be fiscally responsible or even pledging not to increase taxes on middle-income families, Malloy has made it clear that he will continue to protect the rich, even if it comes at everyone else’s expense.

Perhaps the Governor wants Connecticut taxpayers to forget that his 2011 $1.5 billion tax increase raised the income tax rate for middle-income families while those making more than $1 million saw no increase in their income tax rate at all.

Malloy’s pledge will to protect Connecticut’s wealthy will have devastating consequences should he win in November.

The harsh reality is that as result of Governor Malloy’s failure to properly fund public education, the one thing we know about a NO TAX pledge at the state level is that it will lead to higher local property taxes and that will create a tax structure that is even more regressive.

Malloy’s irresponsible promise on taxes not only means Connecticut’s wealthy will get richer while failing to pay their fair share, but it will force our state government to further abdicate its responsibilities.

Even the  most rosy revenue estimates or dreams of a renewed economy will not provide the revenue necessary to maintain vital state services during a 2nd Malloy term.

As noted, four more years of inadequate state funding for education will mean higher property taxes and reduced resources to provide Connecticut’s children with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed.

Four more years of inadequate funding for Connecticut public colleges and universities will shift even more of the costs on to students and parents and will prevent many from even getting the college education they need to lead fuller lives, be self-sufficient and help build our economy.

Four more years of inadequate funding will undermine Connecticut health and human service programs, pushing some of the state’s hospital out of business and leaving many Connecticut citizens without the vital services they need.

Four more years of inadequate funding will devastate state agencies that are already understaffed and will, yet again, unfairly target state employees.

And perhaps most importantly, four more years of inadequate funding will prevent the state of Connecticut from confronting and reducing the overwhelming debt that Malloy and previous governors have built up – that being a maxed out state credit card, insufficient funding of the state and teacher pension funds and insufficient reserves to pay for the state health care retiree accounts.

While many in Connecticut were already questioning Dannel Malloy’s priorities and legacy, his “no tax” pledge ensures that his place in history will be that of just another politician who put his own political aspirations ahead off what was best for the state of Connecticut and its citizens.

  • mookalaboona

    Does anyone know if the state’s contribution to the retired teacher’s health fund has been wiped out? No one’s talking about it. Great, I’ll save 10 percent on my pension, and pay much more for health insurance. with Dannel’s plan

    • jonpelto

      Not wiped out yet – budget has the appropriate payment for this year – so there is about 2 years of “reserve.”

      The big problem comes in the next budget because that payment is one of the things that would create the $1.3-$1.5 billion hole – so when you hear Malloy or the Republicans say no new taxes etc. they are saying they will not make the “mandated” payment and while that “works” for the pension fund for a year or two – it collapses the teacher health insurance fund.

      • mookalaboona

        Well, I hope CEA and AFT get into this instead of posting crap about National Teacher’s Week on their facebook page.

  • buygoldandprosper

    Dan will just call for more “fees” and sick tricks like Keno and ,of course, prayers that the national economy will drag Connecticut off the bottom.

    AND DON”T FORGET THE POWER OF THE SUGGESTION BOX!!

    Meanwhile,
    “This is a new, focused collection initiative,” said Kevin B. Sullivan, the state tax commissioner. “It is not another tax amnesty but grows out of analysis of the recent amnesty, as well as our reallocation of resources to smarter collection strategies.”
    …Cafero said that he hopes the state avoids “auditing and scrutinizing and harassing taxpayers to milk out that $75 million,” including taxpayers who have moved to Florida for the legal limit of 181 days to declare residency in that state.”
    As much as I dislike Florida, perhaps a condo makes sense. I always wondered why so many folks from Ct. had places down there. Like the criminal Steve Cohen. He pulled in $2.4 BILLION last year. Did he pay his fair share? Izzie Englander, with an $850 million paycheck? Ray Dalio, who only made $600 million last year? Does he pay what he owes to the state or does he just collect rent from society?

  • buygoldandprosper

    Dan has always regarded state residents as :

    1) a possible vote

    2) a source of funds

    3) an expense

    Meanwhile as the thug Kevin Sullivan collects for his boss (hey Kevin!Make sure that blind Hispanic singer in Westport pays up!) this:

    “Multinational companies have accumulated $1.95 trillion outside the U.S., up 11.8 percent from a year earlier, according to a Bloomberg News review of filings. By keeping cash offshore, U.S. companies can avoid paying as much as 35 percent tax on repatriated profits.
    Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE is considering tapping its $57 billion in overseas cash to fund its 12.4 billion-euro ($17 billion) offer for Alstom SA (ALO)’s energy business, a person familiar with the situation said this week. Drugmaker Pfizer Inc., which has proposed buying AstraZeneca Plc of the U.K., has $69 billion in cash overseas, data compiled by Bloomberg show.”

  • JMC

    Yes, Malloy will be the one who signs the budget into law, and it is a budget passed by a blue House and by a Blue senate. It’s not like Malloy is the only one at fault here. He’s the 3rd in line.

    • jonpelto

      Fair enough – but there is that whole fish head thing

      • JMC

        There’s a good reason for a system that incorporates checks and balances. But deriving its benefits requires some ideological flexibility.

  • Philip Stull

    Let’s see if the CT Working Families Party supports this targeting of the middle class and the poor? This pledge is right out of the right wing play book and it should make Grover proud.

    • JMC

      I would assume that ultimately the WFP will stand with Malloy since under his governance the EITC came into being, an entitlement which must have cost at least $350 million in cash payouts since 2011 and will cost still more in the future.

      • Philip Stull

        Compare that with the corporate welfare and we know who he cares about.