Both Trump and Connecticut Democrats propose drastic cuts that would undermine higher education

While it should come as no surprise, President Donald Trump’s new federal budget proposal targets higher education for what would be unparalleled budget cuts.  Over the next ten years Trump’s budget plan would eliminate more than $143 billion in financial aid and federal support for students seeking a college education.

Trump’s budget ends the effective Perkins Loan program, eliminates the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, makes record cuts to Pell Grants, dumps the program to forgive student loan debts if a student works for at least 10 years in selected public sector jobs and ends a program that covers interest payments for low income students while they are enrolled in school.

But at the same time, in what can only be described as an incredibly insulting attack, Democratic legislators in the Connecticut General Assembly have proposed equally appalling budget cuts aimed at Connecticut’s public colleges and universities.

In February, Governor Dannel Malloy targeted Connecticut’s public colleges and universities for nearly $50 million in budget cuts, these coming on top of the record cuts Malloy has already made to the University of Connecticut, to the Connecticut State Universities and to the state’s community college system.

But now, in a stunning development, the Democrats in the General Assembly have proposed an additional $135 million in cuts to Connecticut’s public colleges and universities, ensuring massive tuition increases and major reductions in programs and services at all public institutions of higher education in Connecticut.

While Trump’s cuts are to be expected from an unstable, right-wing “nut job,” the cuts being proposed by the Democrats would have a more immediate and devastating impact on public higher education in Connecticut.

The fact that Democratic legislators have proposed to destroy Connecticut’s public colleges and universities is a sad commentary about just how little they care about Connecticut’s middle income and poorer residents and how little they understand about meeting the future needs of Connecticut’s economy.

For more on the federal cuts go to: https://edsource.org/2017/white-house-seeks-billions-in-cuts-to-higher-education-spending/582316 and https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/19/reported-details-trump-budget-include-big-cuts-financial-aid

For more on the budget being proposed by the Democratic legislators go to: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3723660/May-16.pdf

Connecticut elected officials propose record budget cuts to public colleges and universities

While remaining dedicated to coddling the rich by refusing to require them to pay their fair share in taxes, Governor Malloy and members of the Connecticut General Assembly have offered up state budget plans that that will decimate Connecticut’s public colleges and universities and lead to significantly higher tuition at UConn, CSU and the state’s community colleges.

Governor Malloy has already presided over the deepest cuts in state history to Connecticut’s public institutions of higher education but now he – and both parties in the legislature – are seeking truly unprecedented cuts in state funding levels for the University of Connecticut, Connecticut State Universities and Connecticut’s Community Colleges.

These cuts will lead to higher costs for Connecticut families and reduced offerings at Connecticut’s colleges and universities.  The proposals will lead to nothing more than students paying more and getting less.

Faced with a $5 billion projected budget shortfall, Malloy and the Democratic and Republican caucuses in the State Senate and State House of Representatives recently offered up revised budget proposals aimed at addressing Connecticut’s growing fiscal crisis.

The new proposed budgets rely heavily on cuts to education and human services.

In February, Governor Malloy proposed a $38 million in budget cuts to the CSU/Community College budget, a cut that would come on top of Malloy’s massive cuts over the last few years.

Then this past week, Malloy and the Republicans both proposed nearly $25 million more in cuts to CSU and the Community Colleges, while the incredibly outrageous proposal from the Democrats would actually cut off as much as $90 million in state aid to the schools.

As previously noted, in Connecticut, the poor pay about 12% of their income in state and local taxes, the Middle Class about 10% and the state’s wealthiest citizen’s only pay about 5.5% of their income in state and local taxes.

However, rather than require wealthy residents to pay their fair share in taxes, Democrats and Republicans are seeking to dump the state’s budget problems on those least able to pay more.

The cuts to public colleges and universities will certainly lead to massive increases in tuition – which is nothing short of a tax increase on those who are already paying more than their fair share.

As the CT Mirror reported on the Democratic Plan;

Public colleges and universities also face very deep cuts under the Democratic plan.

The University of Connecticut, which already faced a deep cut under the budget Malloy proposed back in February, would lose another $35 million over the next two fiscal years combined under the Democratic legislators’ proposal.

And the Board of Regents of Higher Education, which oversees the state universities and community colleges, would lose another $100 million over the biennium.

The Governor and legislature have no begun closed door negotiations over the budget plan and there appears to be no one in the room who is willing to stand up and speak out on behalf of adequate funding for Connecticut’s colleges and universities.

Media fails to properly report on Malloy plan to destroy Connecticut’s community college system

In a stunning development yesterday, Governor Malloy’s former chief of staff – who know serves as the President of the Connecticut State University and Community College System – proposed a devastating plan that would undermine Connecticut’s Community College System and remove important independent functions of Connecticut’s State Universities.

In the initial news coverage of this breaking news, Connecticut media outlets have failed to focus on the proposal’s negative impacts, instead parroting the empty rhetoric and broad generalities contained in the Malloy administration’s press release.

The CT Mirror reported,

“The Board of Regents for Higher Education will be asked Thursday to endorse a framework for saving at least $41 million annually through the administrative and operational consolidations of institutions that have remained autonomous since the merger in 2011 of the state’s 12 community colleges, four regional state universities and the online college, Charter Oak.”

As for the dramatic plan to strip each college community college of its leadership and administrative teams the news story only adds,

Facing a shrinking college-age population and growing budget gaps, the system’s president, Mark Ojakian, released an outline Monday for an “operational consolidation” unifying the community colleges into a centrally managed institution that would retain its dozen campuses while shedding administrators at an annual saving of $28 million.

“Unifying the community college system” is hardly an adequate explanation of the extraordinary negative impact that would occur by eliminating the community college presidents and campus based leadership teams that presently run each of the state’s twelve community colleges.

Perhaps the most astonishing and disturbing aspect of the entire development is that without legislative or public input the Connecticut State University and Community College Board of Regents are expected to vote on adopting this terrible proposal this coming Thursday.

Media coverage of the proposal can be found via the following links;

CT Mirror: https://ctmirror.org/2017/04/03/ojakian-pitches-sweeping-consolidations-to-keep-cscu-viable/

New Haven Register: http://www.nhregister.com/social-affairs/20170403/president-of-state-colleges-and-universities-system-proposal-would-cut-13-million-in-back-office-jobs

Courant:  http://www.courant.com/education/hc-cscu-sweeping-budget-plan-20170403-story.html

Breaking News – Malloy administration to destroy Connecticut’s historic community college system

For years Connecticut’s public colleges and universities have been the target of Governor Dannel Malloy’s draconian budget cuts.  Year after year Malloy has approached funding Connecticut’s system of public higher education like it was a needless “commodity.”

Now, in a stunning move, and in direct response to Governor Malloy’s Budget proposal, the President of the Connecticut State University and Community College system has just announced that he is seeking the “operational consolidation” of Connecticut’s 12 community colleges “into one that is centrally managed.”

The extraordinary destructive maneuver will undermine Connecticut’s commitment to providing its citizens with a comprehensive set of locally based community colleges.

President Ojakian, who formerly served as Malloy’s Chief of Staff, is proposing, the “significant reduction of campus leadership and management” which will leave the institutions without local leadership.

Connecticut’s community colleges have been extraordinarily successful and, if adopted, this proposal will utterly decimate individual college’s ability to provide the locally driven education programs that have been the hallmark of their success.

More about this terrible proposal as it becomes available.

The following is the media statement by President Ojakian – http://www.ct.edu/newsroom/a_message_from_president_ojakian_regarding_cscu_administrative_consolidatio

Malloy’s austerity budget strategies are hurting Connecticut

  • Record cuts to Connecticut’s public schools and institutions of higher education.
  • Drastic and devastating cuts to vital human services
  • Continuation of corporate welfare programs and efforts to coddle the rich.

Governor Dannel Malloy, with the help of the Connecticut General Assembly, is destroying core government programs and undermining Connecticut’s economic path.

This legislative session, the Democrats in the Connecticut legislature will be faced with a choice – continue Malloy’s disastrous policies – or stand up to the bully and pass a fair and honest state budget.

In order to adopt a better budget solution legislators will need to identify new sources of revenue to pay for vital state services and programs.

To that end, Connecticut Voices for Children has released a major report – today – on Revenue Options to deal with Connecticut’s Fiscal Crisis

Providing a light for Connecticut legislators should they decided to do their job and resolve Connecticut’s massive budget crisis, Connecticut Voices for Children released a report today entitled, Revenue Options are Key to Tackling Budget Shortfalls and Supporting Thriving Communities

CT Voices writes;

In confronting budget deficits of more than $3 billion in the upcoming biennial budget, the commonsense choice for Connecticut should be a balanced approach that includes revenue, rather than a cuts-only approach that threatens an already fragile recovery. Last year, lawmakers chose an “austerity” approach, balancing the budget with $850 million in spending cuts. As a result, the Children’s Budget—a measure of the state’s investments in children and families—fell to a record low 29.5 percent of total General Fund spending.

While such cuts may offer a short-term solution, they do so at a significant cost to the long-term economic structure of the state. 

On the revenue side, there are opportunities to invest in Connecticut’s future by modernizing an outdated sales tax system, strengthening taxes on corporations, and reforming wealth and income taxes. This brief highlights revenue options discussed and/or recommended by the State Tax Panel– –a body of experts who met over the course of two years to evaluate Connecticut’s state and local taxes. While the Panel’s final recommendations were required to be revenue neutral, the policies themselves can be adapted to yield new revenue to support essential investments in our future.

 By combining increased revenue, new strategic investments, and smaller budget cuts, the Governor and the Legislature can both balance the budget and position the state for a more prosperous future. 

 

One of the key elements of the report is an effort to explore a variety of options to ensure that the state’s wealthiest residents start paying their fair share.

Looking to reform wealth and income taxes in Connecticut, CT Voices observes;

A recent report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that Connecticut’s income distribution is the third most unequal state in the nation.7 The report cites upside down total state and local tax systems (which impose a higher effective rate on lower income taxpayers) and the growth in the share of investment income (from dividends, capital gains, and interest) to total income that goes primarily to high-income households, as contributing factors 

Indeed, Connecticut’s overall tax system (including income, property, and sales and excise taxes, minus federal deductions) allows the most powerful among us to pay a much lower percentage of their income in taxes. For example, a family making less than $25,000 a year pays an estimated 11 percent in state and local taxes while a family making over $1,331,000––the top 1 percent––pays 5.5 percent.8 If the top 5 percent of Connecticut households paid the same effective tax rate as the remaining 95 percent of households, the state could raise more than $2 billion in state revenue annually.  

Combined, the listed changes could raise more than $1 billion while also creating a fairer tax system and reducing wealth inequality: 

Increase Top Tax Rate for Top Two Tax Groups ($238 million):     A half percentage point increase on the top two personal income tax brackets would result in an estimated $283.1 million in new state revenue—more than 82 percent of which would fall on the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Over a third of this tax increase would be offset by larger federal income tax deductions typically available to high-income earners, meaning that of the $238 million in new revenue, the state would raise $150.4 million from taxpayers, while the other $87.6 million would be picked up by the federal government.   

Increase Capital Gains and Dividends Taxes for Top Three Tax Groups ($134.6 million):     Carried interest is the share of earnings that investment managers receive from a profitable return of their client’s investment. The federal government treats carried interest as investment income, or capital gains, rather than as wages or commissions. This preferential treatment results in a federal tax liability that is 50 percent less than it would be for ordinary income. This is known as the carried interest loophole. Despite bipartisan support, little hope exists that Congress will take action. By increasing the tax on capital gains and dividends at the state level, Connecticut could redress the large preferences these two types of income enjoy in the federal tax code and raise $134.6 million.

Taxing capital gains and dividends would represent a return to historical treatment of unearned income. When Connecticut’s income tax was enacted in 1991, taxes were also cut for higher-income earners by eliminating a 7 percent tax on capital gains and a 14 percent tax on dividends and interest. Thereafter, investment incomes were subjected to the state income tax at a much lower rate of 4.5 percent. While the top income tax rate has increased to 6.99 percent, it is still below pre-1991 levels for unearned income. Moreover, any increased taxes on unearned income, like any increase on earned income, would be offset in part by larger federal income tax deductions. 

Millionaires Thrive in Connecticut Thanks to Public Investments Anti-tax advocates have been inaccurately citing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data in an effort to convince their audience that higher taxes have resulted in a “mass exodus” of residents seeking low tax states.9 They assert that the income of residents who moved out of the state is income lost to another state, therefore depleting Connecticut’s finances. It is a claim that former Tax Foundation economist Lyman Stone has written rests “on an egregiously wrong use of the data” by analysts who “have either failed to perform the most basic due diligence…or else actively mislead their readers.” In other words, the vast majority of people who leave a state hold jobs that will be filled by people joining the labor force from within the state or moving in, resulting in no “loss of income” at all.   

Indeed, a 2016 study found that millionaires were much less likely to move than the rest of the population and that there was only a very small influence of income tax rates on the probability of moving. This study, based on 13 years of IRS tax data from all millionaires in the U.S., found that millionaire mobility and the low levels of responsiveness of millionaires to taxes meant that top tax rates would only start to decrease revenue if they were significantly higher than the single digit rates of Connecticut. A half percent, one percent, or two percent increase in the top tax bracket would not have a negative impact on revenue due to migration.  

Join Regional Compact to Close Carried Interest Loophole ($535 million):  Another way in which states could act to close the carried interest loophole in light of inaction in Washington D.C. would be to form a regional compact. Already raised by the New York and New Jersey legislatures, the proposed legislation calls for Northeastern states to impose a tax rate on carried interest sufficient to capture each state’s share of the increased federal income tax liability that would be incurred if the loophole were closed at the federal level. Both states’ proposals call for a 19 percent “carried interest fairness fee” until the loophole is closed at the federal level. By definition, the compact would not go into effect until all states (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut) enacted the same provisions. It is estimated that Connecticut could raise $535 million by doing so.

And the Connecticut Voices report outlined a number of other steps that Governor Malloy and the Connecticut General Assembly could take to deal with Connecticut’s fiscal crisis.  The full report can be found at:  http://www.ctvoices.org/sites/default/files/Revenue%20Options%202017_0.pdf

Malloy and Wyman collect public employee political donations – then stab state employees in the back – go figure.

The wave of state employee layoffs that are taking place in Connecticut is a disturbing reminder about how Governor Dannel Malloy and Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman approach electoral politics.

Having promised their support for public services, public employees and collective bargaining, the two neo-liberal politicians had their hands out during their last campaign to collect literally millions of dollars in donations from public sector employees.

However, once safely ensconced back into office for a second term, the dynamic duo have proposed, promoted and implemented the deepest cuts in state history to public services, a hatchet job that includes a new strategy of laying off significant numbers state employees.

It has been thirteen years since Connecticut has seen a governor laying off large numbers of state employees.  That time, disgraced former Governor John Rowland’s disastrous and illegal 2003 purge of state employees ended up costing Connecticut taxpayers about $100 million in back pay and penalties.

As the Hartford Courant reported in January 2016, State Begins Paying $100M Tab For Rowland Layoffs, Including Estimated $15M to Law Firm,

“State officials will spend most of 2016 paying an estimated $100 million tab for last year’s settlement of a long-running federal lawsuit by unions over Gov. John G. Rowland’s 2003 layoff of more than 2,000 state workers. The taxpayer money has already started flowing.”

David Golub, the attorney representing state employee unions and the state employees impacted by that round of layoffs is collecting a tidy $15 million to 17 million in scarce public funds for winning the case.

Now Golub is the lawyer working to help the Connecticut Democratic Party derail an investigation by the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission into the $6 million plus slush fund that the Democratic Party used to – illegally – (allegedly) – support Malloy and Wyman’s  2014 re-election campaign.

At issue in the Malloy/Democratic Party case is the fact that in addition to collecting their $6.2 million public finance subsidy to pay for their re-election, the Malloy/Wyman political operation knowingly and intentionally coordinated and benefited from the activities of two other political committee accounts, each of which raised millions and millions of dollars.

One entity was created by the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) and other account, the one that appears to have violated Connecticut law, was run through the Connecticut Democratic Party.

Claiming to be “friends” of unions, public employees and public services, Malloy and Wyman played a role (it seems) in helping to raise money from public employee unions into the coffers of the two extra political committees.  Those union funds came directly from the pockets of public employees.

Now, of course, state employees and others who are paid with public funds are learning the true cost of putting their trust in charlatans and deceivers.

Connecticut Forward was the name of the Super-PAC that was set up by the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) to support Malloy’s 2014 campaign.  (Malloy is now Chairman of the Washington D.C. based group.)

As initially reported by Wait, What? in 2014 and then re-examined in an article published less than two months ago and entitled, Democrats Malloy and Wyman stab state employees in the back – again – and again, Malloy’s political operation and that Super-PAC relied heavily on the generosity of the public employee unions.

When they were running for re-election, Governor Dannel Malloy and Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman were all smiles as they accepted the political endorsements from Connecticut’s state employee unions and the Connecticut AFL-CIO.

When Malloy and Wyman wanted the unions to fork over money to help pay for their re-election campaign, union leaders stepped up big time.

Using hard-earned money collected from their members, AFSCME dumped $1.2 million into the Super PAC that was set up to support Malloy and Wyman’s effort to spend four more years in office.  The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) added $600,000 and SEIU donated $550,000 to the same political committee.

During the same period, Malloy and Wyman’s political fortunes were further enhanced thanks to more than $160,000 in union donations to the special account that was set up by the Democratic State Central Committee and used to pay for Malloy’s direct mail program.  Those contributions included $10,000 from AFT, $10,000 from NEA, $5,850 from SEIU, $5,000 from AFSCME and $1,800 from CEIU.

Even the Working Families Party got into the act, moving $25,000 in union funds to the Connecticut Forward Super-PAC.

Now, seventeen months later, although Malloy and Wyman knew that difficult times were ahead and chose to remain silent, public services are being destroyed and state employees are being laid off.

And to those who would dismiss the underlying issue by claiming Malloy is simply taking the financial actions that are needed to balance the state budget, one need only remember that another major source of the campaign cash for the Malloy/Wyman re-election effort was the charter school industry and their pro-Common Core, pro-Common Core testing and anti-teacher education reform allies.

In Malloy’s world of “shared sacrifice,” will proposing the deepest cuts in state history to public schools, Malloy has actually proposed adding to the $100 million a year that is already being handed over to the privately owned and operated charter schools, all while he remains committed to forcing Connecticut’s children to suffer under the unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory Common Core SBAC testing scam and then using the results of that flawed testing system to evaluated teachers.

Finally, while Malloy and Wyman make incredible cuts to public services, they remain committed to an agenda of coddling the rich and opposing any reasonable efforts to make the wealthy pay their fair share.

As Malloy and Wyman institute policies that push even more of the tax burden onto local property taxpayers, Connecticut is already in a situation in which the poor pay about 12 percent of their income in state and local taxes, the middle class pay about 10 percent of their income in state and local taxes, yet the state’s wealthiest only pay about 5.5 percent of their income in state and local taxes.

The legacy is becoming very clear.  Cut vital services, layoff public employees, make Connecticut’s regressive tax system even more unfair and continue to make a mockery of the promises and pledges of their  2014 re-election campaign.

CT Charter Schools collect $100 million+ from taxpayers despite discriminating and abusing children

Hidden by the holidays, Governor Dannel Malloy and Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman trotted out their budget chief, Ben Barnes, last week to quietly announce another $93 million in state budget cuts, many of which were targeted at the most critical services and vulnerable citizens in Connecticut.

As CT Newsjunkie reported in Malloy Administration Identifies Savings, But Not Everyone Is Pleased, the Malloy/Wyman administration’s latest cuts target municipal aid, mental health care, services for the developmentally and intellectually disabled, and healthcare services.

The most despicable cut may very well be Malloy’s expanded effort to refuse group home placements for citizens and their families who are in crisis.

However, while vital programs are cut, the companies that own Connecticut’s twenty-three (23) charter schools will be given more than $100 million in scarce public funds this year even though these privately owned, but publicly funded, schools refuse to educate their fair share of students who require special education services and students who need additional help with the English Language.  Furthermore, the “no-excuses” discipline strategies used by Achievement First, Inc. and other charter schools are nothing short of child abuse.

If a Connecticut public school consistently abused children or discriminated against Latinos and other English Language Learners or students with special needs, investigations would be conducted, people would lose their jobs and local boards of education would be sued.  But that simply isn’t the case when it comes to the charter school industry – thanks to their special relationship with the Malloy/Wyman administration.

While Governor Dannel Malloy receives accolades for his “Second Chance” initiative, the truth about his administration’s discriminatory policies speak louder than its rhetoric.

Sarah Darer  Littman, an education advocate and CT Newsjunkie columnist, examined the issue in a recent piece entitled, Second Chance’ Malloy Should Revisit First Term Malloy’s Policies.

Sarah Darer Littman wrote;

“The disconnect with second-term Malloy’s Second Chance Society is that he spent his first term pushing for costly legislation that contradicts the research on keeping young people out of the juvenile justice system in the first place.

study by the Civil Rights Project at UCLA found that one out of every four black K-12 students with disabilities was suspended out of school at least one time in 2009-10. This high risk for suspension is a full 16 percentage points higher than the risk for white students with disabilities.

According to a report by the National Center on Disability, 85 percent of incarcerated youth have learning and/or emotional disabilities, yet only 37 percent of these young people received special education in school. Most were either undiagnosed or didn’t receive adequate support in school.

Tell me about it. Bridgeport has had two complaints filed with the state Department of Education in the last two years alleging failures to provide special education services. Regarding the first complaint, state investigators found that under then-Superintendent Paul Vallas, Bridgeport “systematically violated” its IDEA Child Find mandate.

Meanwhile in Hartford, “no-excuses” Achievement First Hartford Academy settled a lawsuit alleging that it had failed to provide special education services and had punished students for behaviors relating to their disability. They promised to “do better,” yet in November a lawsuit was filed in New York citing similar issues at a Brooklyn AF school. Achievement First also topped the chart for elementary school suspensions in 2013.

At that time co-CEOs Dacia Toll and Doug McCurry wrote they’d received a wakeup call: “We recognize that our suspension numbers are simply too high, and we are committed to significantly reducing the numbers.”

The state Board of Education renewed Achievement First Hartford Academy’s charter for 3 years despite these concerns. On Oct. 4, the Courant reported that “only one student has been suspended so far at the Achievement First Hartford Academy Elementary School.”

Yet according to a recent Connecticut Department of Education Report, Achievement First schools still occupy four out of the five top elementary school slots in elementary school suspensions and expulsions and three of the top five in the middle and high school categories. Hartford Academy Elementary School is number two in the state.

Overall, according to the state Department of Education report:

  • the suspension rate in the elementary grades in the Public Charter Schools (14 percent) is almost twice that in the 10 Ed-Reform districts (7.3 percent), both of which are substantially greater than the state average (3 percent).
  • the suspension rates in the middle grades in the 10 Ed-Reform districts (22.3 percent), the Public Charter Schools (26.3 percent), the Endowed Academies (18.5 percent), and the State School Districts (24.3 percent) are substantially greater than the state average (10.1 percent).
  • the suspension rates in the high secondary grades in the Public Charter Schools (29.9 percent) and in the 10 Ed-Reform districts (25.6 percent) are substantially greater than the state average (12.3 percent).

Given this data, and the fact that AF Hartford Academy’s charter is up for renewal this spring, it’s particularly troubling that Gov. Malloy appointed Erik Clemons, a board member of an Achievement First school in New Haven, to the state Board of Education. We trust he will recuse himself on AF’s charter renewal votes based on his conflict of interest.

Sarah Darer Littman goes on to explain more about Malloy’s “two-faced” approach when it comes to the issue of “education reform” and “social justice reform.”

Read her full piece at:  http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/op-ed_second_chance_malloy_should_revisit_first_term_malloys_policies/

Petulant Democratic Governor Malloy demands more money for charters school chains

When Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy addressed a joint session of the Connecticut General Assembly ninety days ago to present his proposed state budget, he called for record cuts to Connecticut’s public schools while demanding the legislature increase funding for charter schools by more than 25 percent.

While he proposed cutting money for public schools and shifting even more of the costs of public education onto the backs of middle income property taxpayers, Malloy wanted the legislature to give him even more money so that his corporate education reform industry associates could open up two more charter schools in Connecticut.

The Democrats on the Appropriations Committee rejected Malloy’s plan.

Although they did increase funding for charters, they shifted most of the money over to help fill some of the cuts the Governor had made to Connecticut’s public schools.

But in typical fashion, the thin-skinned governor condemned the Democrats and today joined the corporate funded charter school advocates in blasting the legislators who had the courage to try and reduce the magnitude of Malloy’s cuts to Connecticut’s public schools.

Rather than recognizing the effort that members of his own party took to help their districts and Connecticut’s public school students, Malloy went after them saying, “Let me be very clear, we also have to understand that we are going to have charter schools in Connecticut.”

Typical … In Malloy’s world – it is Dannel’s way or no way…

Even if it means hurting Connecticut’s students, parents, teachers, public schools and taxpayers.

Ken Dixon of the Connecticut Post wrote about today’s charter school industry rally noting, “Malloy stars in charter schools rally at Capitol.”

Following up on the articles posted here at Wait, What? both the Hartford Courant and the CT Mirror took note of the massive amount of corporate funds that are pouring into the charter school lobbying effort.  The Hartford Courant’s story is entitled Unprecedented Charter School Lobbying Effort Prompts Some To Ask: Where Is The Money Coming From?, while the CT Mirror’s story is titled, “Aggressive charter school campaign descends on the Capitol.”

 

 

Malloy budget targets most vulnerable among us

As we know, Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy promised that he would not propose or accept any tax increase if he was elected to a second term  and then went ahead and proposed over $900 million in revenue “enhancements” in his budget address this week.

Malloy also used his re-election campaign to promise that he would maintain funding for local cities and towns and would not cut vital services.

On budget day, in the same document he proposed flat funding Connecticut’s Education Cost Sharing education funding formula; he cut about $70 million from a variety of important public education programs that assist local schools as they seek to serve some of Connecticut’s most vulnerable children.

And as if all of that wasn’t revolting enough, Malloy reserved his most drastic and draconian cuts for some of the state’s most important social service programs.

In a powerful and MUST READ commentary piece, Sarah Darer Littman lays out the truth about Malloy’s devastating budget plan in her commentary piece at the CTNewsjunkie;

Governor’s Budget Ignores Evidence, Hits Vulnerable (By Sarah Darer Littman)

Last week, after two years of hearing testimony, the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission issued its draft report.

One hundred and thirty pages of the 198-page report relate to mental health issues, and the importance of building “systems of care that actively foster healthy individuals, families and communities,” particularly in light of research showing that “approximately half of young people qualify for some behavioral health diagnosis by the time they reach 18.”

Yet less than a week later, when Gov. Malloy revealed his biennial budget for 2016-2017, it was as if the Commission had produced an expensive paperweight, for all the attention it received from the administration.

According to an analysis by CT Voices for Children,  the “Children’s Budget” – state government spending that directly benefits young people – makes up only a third of the overall state budget, yet over half (54 percent) of the governor’s proposed cuts come from programs affecting children and families.

That’s before we even get to health care and education.

The Sandy Hook report specifically mentioned the importance making it easier for families to obtain mental health services for young people. Yet the budget reduces funding for the Young Adult Services program by $2.7 million (3.3 percent) and reduces funding for school based health centers by $1 million (8.5 percent).

In the Department of Education, the governor plans to eliminate funding for “lower priority or non-statewide programs” by $ 6.2 million. Here we’re talking about programs such as Leadership, Education, Athletics in Partnership (LEAP); Connecticut PreEngineering Program; Connecticut Writing Project; neighborhood youth centers; Parent Trust; science program for Educational Reform Districts; wrap-around services; Parent Universities; school health coordinator pilot; technical assistance – Regional Cooperation; Bridges to Success; Alternative High School and Adult Reading; and School to Work Opportunities. Not only that,he’s cutting $6.49 million annually for Extended School Building Hours and Summer School components of the Priority School District Grant (i.e. grant program for districts with greatest academic need).

Wrap-around services, longer school days, and enrichment for students, particularly in the more disadvantaged districts, were something Malloy touted when he was selling his education reform package back in 2012. “It’s not as if we don’t know what works,” Malloy said in an article in the New Britain Herald: “wrap-around services, longer school days and longer school years, Saturday enrichment options.”

On top of what Malloy said, there’s over 100 years worth of research on summer learning loss. It disproportionately affects lower-income students whose parents can’t afford to send them to pricey summer camps or other enrichment activities. What’s more, the effects are cumulative, contributing to the achievement gap.

Take the time to read Sarah Darer Littman’s entire commentary piece.

You can find it at: http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/op-ed_governors_budget_ignores_evidence_hits_vulnerable/

Budget Cuts – Round #1, More to Come

On Thursday, Governor Malloy’s budget director announced a series of significant budget cuts to existing state programs.  The problem is not only the damage the cuts will do but that they solve only a portion of this year’s growing state budget deficit which is now projected at about $100 million.  However, the magnitude of the budget deficit is closer to twice that number, a fact that Malloy can’t keep secret for more than another month or two.

Still Malloy’s initial cuts fly in the face of his repeated promises that Connecticut’s fiscal health is good and that we do not need to cut vital services if the voters of Connecticut granted him a second term in office.

But his actions tell a very different story.

Topping his list of budget cuts was, as expected, Connecticut’s public colleges and universities, along with critically important human services.

CT Mirror has the details at “Malloy’s emergency budget cuts fall on social services, education,” CTNewsJunkie at “Malloy Makes Cuts To DCF, Higher Ed,” and the Courant at “Malloy Makes $47.8M In Budget Cuts To Ease Deficit.”

The most revolting of Malloy’s budget cuts are aimed at Connecticut most vulnerable citizens, children facing severe challenges and those with developmental disabilities.

Malloy cut $9.2 million from the Department of Children and Families and $5.5 million from the Department of Developmental Disabilities.  Since there are only seven months left in the fiscal year, these cuts will hit key programs especially hard.

As reported by CT Mirror and others, Malloy has been limiting access to DCF’s residential treatment programs (group homes for extremely troubled children).   His latest cut will effectively close the door on new placements and lead the closure of even more DCF group homes.

While a Malloy official explained away the problem to the CT Mirror by saying that DCF was, “committed to maintaining youth in their communities in the least restrictive settings that can meet their needs,” the reality of the situation is that there are many parents and children that desperately need residential options.  In far too many cases, the failure to provide a residential placement puts the family and child in danger.

However, in what only can be described as an immoral move, the Malloy administration turns its back on these Connecticut families and children.  If Malloy’s action is not illegal, it should be.

In an equally inappropriate blow, Malloy is cutting the Department of Developmental Services including day services and employment programs for those with developmental disabilities.  Sad and ironic that Malloy reduces residential treatment options and then reduces options for those who need day treatment and employment services.

Malloy’s human service cuts also include $3.2 million cut from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. The cuts to that agency will mean vitally important positions will go unfilled, leaving remaining employees unable to meet the present demand for services.

At the same time the governor is going after human services, he is also cutting an additional $6.5 from Connecticut’s public colleges and universities, this despite the fact that Malloy has already made the deepest cuts in state history to Connecticut’s system of public higher education.

Rather than speak out against these dramatic cuts, the spokespeople for the universities and colleges rolled over in appeasement, thereby assuring that Connecticut students and their parents will be paying even more and getting even less from UConn, CSU and the community colleges.

As Malloy pretends to claim that he is adhering to his “no new taxes” pledge, Connecticut college students and their parents will be paying higher tuition – which is nothing more than a user tax.

But perhaps the most offensive move of all is Malloy’s failure to come clean about the magnitude of the budget problem, even though the election is safely behind him.

While the present budget deficit is officially pegged at about $100 million, Malloy’s budget office is holding back evidence of additional budget problems.  The reality of the situation is that this round of cuts solves less than half of the documented budget deficit and more like 25 percent of the real budget problem facing the state.

Even in victory Malloy remains unable or unwilling to tell the people of Connecticut the truth.