Statement from Republican candidate for lieutenant governor David Walker:
Governor Malloy’s decision to drop his debt-financed tax rebate is just the latest evidence that the Governor’s proposed state budget is driven by politics–specifically his re-election–rather than sound fiscal responsibility considerations. That’s exactly how Connecticut became the worst state in total liabilities and unfunded promises per taxpayer.
Everyone familiar with the state budget knows that the capital gains tax is one of the most volatile revenue sources in the budget. Revenues from that tax are a result of factors which are beyond the control of the state and which the state has historically had difficulty projecting. In addition, many taxpayers accelerated taking gains in 2012 in the face of a capital gains tax rate increase in 2013. Recognizing these facts Governor Malloy could have used any additional capital gains tax revenue, if any, to eliminate the fiscal gimmicks already built into his budget, to pay down debt, or to increase the states paltry “Rainy Day Fund.” All of those would’ve been fiscally responsible actions. Instead, the governor chose to use inflated revenue estimates to fund a proposed election year handout, dubbed a ‘refund,’ to some taxpayers. By doing so he made it clear that his own re-election in 2014, rather than the longer-term welfare of the state and its residents, was his highest priority.I also find it interesting that the governor is still pursuing another dubious proposal to exempt part of a retired state teacher’s pension payments from the state income tax. This proposal is limited to retired teachers. No other taxpayer would receive a similar benefit. This proposal was made when Governor Malloy was under attack from many teachers and their unions because of some of the educational policies he has pursued over the last four years. Just another example of politics trumping prudence.
This is nothing new. For too long sound fiscal responsibility and budgeting practices have taken a backseat to the political concerns of the Governor and the Democratic majority in the General Assembly. If we’re going to put Connecticut on a sound fiscal footing these practices must stop. Together, in partnership with a new Republican governor, I will fight to make that happen and to create a Comeback in Connecticut.
Malloy said he did not know about the capital gains tax break. Like he did not take advantage of the tax break himself? Remember, Malloy is a wealthy man and does things wealthy men do. Maybe he thought he was the only guy smart enough to think of it.
Most Comptroller Generals of the United States would understand auditing the currency would involve a lot of politics trumping prudence (great line, Mr. Walker). My head gets dizzy though, thinking of the role politics must’ve played in our $17 trillion debt. Prudent men don’t make those kinds of obligations, even recognizing governments outlast all people.
Connecticut’s problems are many but its debt is tiny by comparison.
But you’re on the partisan side now, despite running several PACs that sought “no labels.” It must’ve been fantastic preparation for the job you’re seeking now.
Excellent point, working and getting people elected who say they will work together across the aisle and believe in reform is very important work, there does come a time when enough people approach a person to run for office and put their experience to the hard task of running for office and once again be in the position to implement real reform and change–so yes, his years of being appointed by three presidents to head departments in the executive and legislative branch of the Federal government and his years of helping others get elected is no doubt a big help to Dave on this very hard road.
The debt problem is tiny in comparison to what? Which of our current problems is not directly or indirectly related to money and the need for more of it? If we did not have all this debt we would have more money. If we had more money we would not have most of these problems.
Guess Walker only likes tax cuts when they go to his rich buddies in Greenwich like Mr. Foley who specialized in driving companies into bankruptcy so he could purchase others.
David,
Do you know anyone who dislikes a tax cut? Assuming you do, would you invite them to offer a sample of their reasoning for the benefit of OIB readers?
If the City Council permits any tax increase in the City Operating Budget they are studying, we will probably see an example of an extra tax payment by some that acts as a subsidy for others who may better afford the tax due to greater wealth or income. This will happen because changes in property values have not happened evenly across the community between 2008 and 2013. Acknowledging the change in values, allowing people to challenge the comparables and pursue justice in the courts from lowered house values meaning raised mil rates would have been a fair way to act. But Bill Finch did not like the potential backlash where everyone is up in arms. So he promoted a situation where City money was spent for current assessed values and the results have been ignored, kept secret, perhaps even shredded, per rumor. We can do over in two years. Amazing???
What are your thoughts to keep the Mayor from driving the City into bankruptcy? Do we assume you are a property or automobile taxpayer in the City of Bridgeport upon your return from the southwest? What’s your thought on tax cuts? Time will tell.