| Senator Toni Boucher (R-26) made
these remarks during debate on the floor of the State
Senate on August 31, 2009
Faced with overwhelming odds, the Governor has made
enormous efforts to negotiate a budget that she cannot
enact but must wait for the veto proof majority to approve.
Some believe that the Governor has made the decision
to compromise, with no sincere effort from the other
side to negotiate in the same fashion.
She has put proposals on the table time and again
in an effort at compromise. The other side stubbornly
time and again crossed their arms and refused to budge,
preferring no action in stopping huge, unsustainable
spending increases. Instead, this style of negotiating
is to embrace any new taxes on the table and refuse
any tax reductions or any spending cuts, something that
nearly every business and family has been doing for
the last two years. No, their plan is to borrow all
shortfalls in revenues, tax what hasn’t been taxed
yet, or pass on another tax or fee increase to a public
that can’t absorb it during these difficult times.
Today, the majority side once again did not comprise.
They did not agree to the elimination of the estate
tax, or even the delay of in school suspensions and
treating 17- and 18-year olds like juveniles that will
burden every town and city - whether Democratic or Republican
- with increased costs that they cannot afford. Instead,
they are planning to shut down prisons, spend $500 million
more than last year, increase nearly every fee in Connecticut,
borrow over $2 billion and drain the entire $1.4-billion
Rainy Day Fund - creating a $3-billion deficit in 2012.
There is a perception by the public that the Hartford
style of negotiating is to accept any new taxes on the
table and refuse to implement any tax reductions or
any spending cuts. The General Assembly plan is to borrow
all shortfalls in revenues and let runaway spending
continue into the future.
Now more than ever, we need to be very careful how
we proceed with new tax proposals as Connecticut’s
budget and tax decisions will determine its future job
prospects. We should understand who the real job creators
are; many are the 26,000 targeted in this bill. The
public is becoming increasingly tired of massive government
spending both in Washington and in Hartford. They are
starting to get it, and understand that they do not
want the owners of the businesses they work for to move
their jobs out of state. With that being said, faced
with such lack of understanding of the underpinnings
of our economy by those she must negotiate with, this
Governor has done a remarkable job.
Our job is to listen to what our districts’
taxpayers are thinking. After all, they are footing
the bill.
In the last month, I have asked my constituents what
they think. They are showing up in the hundreds at town
meetings and forums in all of my towns. Just this past
weekend, nearly 800 attended a local forum. The mood
of the public was immediately clear. They are angry
and suspicious.
There is a perception that Connecticut has a spending
problem, not a revenue problem and that without significant
spending cuts, like any addiction, increasing taxes
simply will enable the habit of spending at an unsustainable
rate to continue.
1. They do not want more government programs.
2. They do not want more government spending. They
want us to STOP.
And, they are increasingly tired of actions that enable
the unsustainable spending habits of government special
interests.
3. Increasingly, they do not like what their leaders
in the General Assembly are doing.
4. They are angrier than I have ever seen, more than
during the income tax year if that is possible.
My district’s voters and I are on the same page.
They expect the state to make the same sacrifices they
are making. By passing this structurally unsound budget,
the majority is throwing up its hands and saying they
are incapable of getting the job the public expects
to be done, done right. This ( will be is) an easy no
vote for me to take. I hope that others around this
circle, who put Connecticut first instead of special
interests, will also vote no.
|
