Senate Passes Budget

Capitol Watch reports that the budget plan passed 19-16. The interesting piece:

Five fiscally conservative Democrats voted against the budget: Robert Duff of Norwalk, Joan Hartley of Waterbury, Gayle Slossberg of Milford, Paul Doyle of Wethersfield, and Ed Meyer of Guilford.

So much for efforts at caucus unity.

No chance of a veto override, of course, but that’s not what they’re after.

The package includes $2.5 billion in tax increases, over $1 billion in spending cuts, and $2 billion in federal stimulus money.

Advertisements

5 responses to “Senate Passes Budget

  1. Senate Democrats were embarrassed by the bill. It’s no surprise that Williams hard a difficult time selling it to his team.

  2. Well, today’s vote was … instructive … if nothing else: We know now what it costs to buy a Senator.

    Andy McDonald, who risks his political career by supporting higher taxes on the Stamford-area resident he (ostensibly) represents, today sold his seat (and perhaps his soul) for about $850,000 in extra cash for the Stamford city schools and a paltry couple hundred grand for the local theater.

    So much for moral … rectitude.

    See, for example, Brian Lockhart’s pre-vote blog entry here: http://blog.ctnews.com/politicalcapitol/2009/06/24/senate-scheduled-to-vote-on-budget-tommorrow-that-sweetens-the-pot-for-stamford-lawmakers/

    McDonald took a bribe — the calculation is as simple as that — and voted Don Williams’s way. Had he not — and had Len Fasano been present for Republicans — the vote would have been 18-18. Another Williams vote-counting fiasco.

    One can only hope it costs McDonald his career.

  3. The Senate Democrats who voted against this budget should be primaried. Rich folks have gotten vast federal and state tax breaks over the past few decades. The tax burden of the wealthy has been shifted to everyone else. Shame on these five who either lack courage or are in the wrong party.

  4. Next step…

    Pass the Governors budget without changes. It’s the Republican budget. It’s the Republican thing to do.

    It’s already in deficit, and the cuts are deep will be remembered. Only those who already plan to vote for her or whatever Republican dares run on her budget, will be greatful. Nothing but fiscal responsibillity will be at risk.

    This is a budget Democrats can run from and run against.

    Call Their bluff!!

  5. The Senate Democrats who voted against this budget should be primaried. Rich folks have gotten vast federal and state tax breaks over the past few decades. The tax burden of the wealthy has been shifted to everyone else. Shame on these five who either lack courage or are in the wrong party.

    Kingfish, you are dead wrong. The wealthiest Americans (and Connecticut residents) have been pulling the weight of the rest of us for the last 30 years. If it had any chance of being passed, this grossly flawed budget would shift more of the tax burden on to us, and take it away from them. This is a fact:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

    Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called “Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?” This should be required reading for today’s state legislators. It concludes: “Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees.”

    More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found “a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth.” In other words, soaking the rich doesn’t work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.

    Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the “soak the rich” tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s