Budget Passes House, Gov Likely to Veto

The Democratic budget plan passed the State House of Representatives this afternoon by a tally of 91-48.  It now heads to certain death at the point of Governor Rell’s veto pen.

The Democratic budget attempts to balance a budget that is in the red by as much as $8.5 billion by raising taxes by $2.5 billion and reducing spending by $1 billion.

Business groups have been highly critical of the Democratic budget deal, saying that it unfairly targets local businesses that are already struggling in the current economy. Andy Markowski, the state director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said this:

“Higher corporate and income taxes will take a bite from businesses of all sizes, but it will be a much more damaging blow for small employers.”

Democrats have deflected this criticism, saying that their bill targets the rich and forces them to pay their fair share, without pointing out that this has been the Legislature’s rallying cry since 1991, and Connecticut’s employment growth since that time has been the worst in the nation.

There was a flurry of activity in the chamber before the vote when spunky Wolcott Democrat Corky Masurek offered an amendment that would have eliminated the state’s public financing system for political campaigns, the Citizens’ Election Program. 

After a spirited debate, the amendment failed miserably.

Advertisements

13 responses to “Budget Passes House, Gov Likely to Veto

  1. There was a flurry of activity in the chamber before the vote when spunky Wolcott Democrat Corky Masurek offered an amendment that would have eliminated the state’s public financing system for political campaigns, the Citizens’ Election Program. 

    Funny how legislators who faced suddenly well-funded primary challenges don’t like public financing of political campaigns.

  2. There was a flurry of activity in the chamber before the vote when spunky Wolcott Democrat Corky Masurek offered an amendment that would have eliminated the state’s public financing system for political campaigns, the Citizens’ Election Program. 

    The nerve of the guy.

    Who does he think he is going to Hartford and representing the will of his district anyway?
    Why can’t he be a party-line flunkie like most of his Democratic peers?

  3. Democrat Shawn Johnston supported the bill and he ran unopposed – just like 45 other incumbents.

  4. Bruce Rubenstein

    acr your party has just as many % wise….

  5. I don’t see what the problem is–if Rell won’t sign the budget, why don’t they have Crisco do it for her?

  6. I don’t see what the problem is–if Rell won’t sign the budget, why don’t they have Crisco do it for her?

    That’s brilliant!

  7. “Funny how legislators who faced suddenly well-funded primary challenges don’t like public financing of political campaigns. ”

    samuelCT, the situation in Corky’s case was he won the Democratic endorsement at his local caucus BUT the union people from OUTSIDE of Wolcott wanted to challenge him and they never would have had enough money on their own to wage a campaign against him so they passed the public financing of campaigns law just for cases like this.

    This way they can use TAXPAYER funds instead of union dues to wage their childish and senseless vindictive campaigns against good people like Corky Mazurek.

    Karen Houtaling’s whole campaign was managed and run by the CCAG and the unions with very little actual help from people who live in Wolcott. Without the public funds, they never would have picked this fight. So they take tens of thousands of dollars of public money and STILL LOST.

    Let’s face it, taxpayer funding of campaigns is just plain stupid and something we absolutely cannot afford in these trying economic times.

  8. samuelCT, the situation in Corky’s case was he won the Democratic endorsement at his local caucus BUT the union people from OUTSIDE of Wolcott wanted to challenge him and they never would have had enough money on their own to wage a campaign against him so they passed the public financing of campaigns law just for cases like this.

    Maybe there’s a loophole in the law that I don’t know about, but didn’t Houtaling have to raise the same money from residents of her district as anyone?

    And I thought unions were supposed to have all kinds of money, if they can’t raise $10,000 to take out a state rep that they dislike then why should anyone worry about their power?

  9. Thomas Hooker

    Democrats have deflected this criticism, saying that their bill targets the rich and forces them to pay their fair share, without pointing out that this has been the Legislature’s rallying cry since 1991, and Connecticut’s employment growth since that time has been the worst in the nation.

    Let’s keep in mind that corporate tax receipts represent only 6.42% of total state tax receipts in Connecticut. According to The Tax Foundation’s data, Connecticut ranks 27th lowest in the country in terms of its dependence on corporate tax receipts. So the notion that Connecticut corporate entities are over-taxed is simply not supported by the data.

  10. Maybe there’s a loophole in the law that I don’t know about, but didn’t Houtaling have to raise the same money from residents of her district as anyone?

    Never mind that Houtaling wasn’t even registered to vote in Wolcott when she was pushed into the entire joke by her union.

    With literally 100’s of union “volunteers” (IE: “do this or we’ll break your legs”) collecting donations and signatures was obviously no problem.

    Of course running rough-shod over the local freely and fairly elected local Democratic Town Committee is another little issue; but I guess that’s okay too.

    In truth the entire fiasco was an attempted power-grab by the union and would have resulted in a candidate with no natural constituency or alliances what-so-ever.

  11. Let’s keep in mind that corporate tax receipts represent only 6.42% of total state tax receipts in Connecticut. According to The Tax Foundation’s data, Connecticut ranks 27th lowest in the country in terms of its dependence on corporate tax receipts. So the notion that Connecticut corporate entities are over-taxed is simply not supported by the data.

    Assuming that I’m not moderated for the third time in the last two days…

    Thomas, your cited stat does nothing to disprove the notion that Connecticut corporations are over-taxed. Your stat refers to Connecticut’s tax revenues that come from corporate entities, as a percentage of all taxes received. However, it says absolutely nothing about whether Connecticut’s corporate tax rates are too high — and they are.

    For your information, just about every tax revenue is equal to the product of a tax rate and a tax base. If you raise the tax rate too much, then the tax base will shrink — that goes for Connecticut’s income tax base (read: job “growth” since 1991), Connecticut’s municipalities’ property tax base (read: Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford are dying slow deaths at their own hands) or any other tax out there.

    Now, you’ve used the low Connecticut corporate tax revenue to prove that Connecticut’s corporate tax rates are not high at all. In essence, A = B x C, and you’re arguing that B isn’t high because A isn’t high, and that’s a stupid argument. We would have more corporate tax revenue if we had a larger corporate tax base, and we would have a larger corporate tax base if it wasn’t so damn expensive to own a corporation here — curing that problem begins with slashing corporate taxes.

  12. Also, it’s the total tax burden that’s an important consideration when companies decide to move into or leave the state. If net taxes are too high, any additional raise in any tax becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back. And Connecticut may still be the highest taxed state.

  13. Yes samuel, Houtaling’s union army was barely successful in scraping up the $5000.00 worth of in district contribution in order to qualify her for the taxpayer funds.

    This isn’t a matter of anyone “worrying” about the union’s power (or lack of it), the issue here is the wasting of valuable taxpayer resources on politician’s campaigns and worse yet, allowing the use of public dollars to finance the labor union’s and CCAG’s agendas when there would be no challenges like this if the public money wasn’t there.

    That’s why Corky Mazurek and Shawn Johnston along with all the other Republicans (except Tony Hwang) rightfully proposed the amendment to abolish taxpayer funding of political campaigns.

    Funny how Tony Hwang, a Republican from Fairfield was the ONLY Republican to defeat an incumbent Democrat State Rep. in 2008 was against doing away with public funding of campaigns.

    Tony has fed at the public trough and Tony likey what he pigged out on. I wonder how his constituency (the most Republican part of Fairfield and part of Trumbull) likes the fact that he’s in favor of using their money to fund his campaign?

    It may go over well in New Haven and Hartford but my guess is that the good people of Trumbull and Fairfield think otherwise.

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