They are right on both counts. Connecticut is an expensive place to live and our state does carry a lot of debt; to be precise, $14.2 billion in bonded debt as of September. When ranked nationally according to per capita state debt, Connecticut comes in third. When ranked according to percentage of personal income, our state comes in fourth. Our debt burden equals $6,452 for every man, woman and child in the state. Bottom line? Connecticut’s debt burden is more than twice the national average, and higher than that carried by most New England states. As you continue reading, keep in mind that many states operate differently when it comes to state versus local bonding issues.

That is not a pretty picture. And the experts do not see us becoming debt free in the foreseeable future. Connecticut’s debt service expenditures have almost doubled since 1997. Our debt service expenditures equaled about 10.8 percent of the state’s budget in fiscal 1997, and is expected to equal about 11.7 percent of the state’s budget by fiscal 2009.

People who hear these numbers are horrified and cry out for the state to just stop spending. After all, that is what reasonable people do when they find their credit card bills are too high. If Connecticut’s families and businesses have to tighten their belts and close their wallets in order to control their debt, then why not state government?

Connecticut has to do everything possible and reasonable to pay off the debt it already has and needs to resist the urge to incur debt that is not absolutely necessary. We need to ask what we are incurring debt to buy.

Last year and next year, the biggest chunk of Connecticut’s general obligation bonded expenditures is attributable to school construction. As a matter of fact, we expect school construction to make up 48.5 percent of the state’s general obligation bond allocations over the next five years. We expect higher education projects for the state university system, UConn 21st Century, and the community college system will account for an additional 28.3 percent of our general obligation bond allocations over the next five years. Many states do not help local school districts with school construction projects; rather the total burden is left to be funded by the town or the county.

The rest of our general obligation bond expenditures go for – and will continue to go for – clean water projects, manufacturing assistance, the Housing Trust Fund, open space, a planned new public health laboratory, and grants to municipalities for projects intended to improve the quality of life for the people who live there.

Specific grants to municipalities include now, and will continue to include those awarded under the Urban Act Program. The state is expected to spend $50 million both this year and next year under the Urban Act Program, which is designed to redirect, improve and expand state activities that promote community conservation and development, and improve the quality of life for urban residents of the state. Grants under the Local Capital Improvement Program – which reimburses municipalities for the cost of eligible capital improvement projects such as roads, bridges or public construction activities – are expected to be $30 million both this year and next year. Grants under the Small Town Economic Assistance Program – which funds economic development, community conservation and quality of life projects for municipalities ineligible for Urban Action bonds – are expected to be $20 million this year and next year.

Over the next five years, we expect to authorize only 8.4 percent of the general obligation bonds for projects that have not yet been fully defined.

Connecticut does spend a lot of money on capital projects, especially when you consider that the general obligation bonds we have been discussing does not take into account what we spend on roads and transportation projects. Almost all transportation projects, because of their shear size require bonding. The new cars order for the railroad are a perfect example of one piece of the transportation bonding package.

Protecting Long Island Sound and our drinking water supply, require maintaining the sewer systems that feed into them. The state helps communities to keep theses facilities up to date, through bonding. We invest in jobs and housing, and at least some of the local projects that are important to the people who live in our state. And, I do not believe that anyone – certainly not anyone in Fairfield County – feels that improving our roads and transportation system is not long overdue. Most of these projects are paid by bonding.

None of this is free. The question is whether or not Connecticut is getting its money worth. The General Assembly each year approves the money allocated for bond projects. Before any of the bond funds approved by the General Assembly are spent, the State Bond Commission – which includes Governor Rell, along with other state officials and legislators from both political parties – must agree to release those funds. After those approvals, the state Office of Policy and Management oversees how the funds are actually spent.

I am interested in hearing your views about this issue, and any others, important to our state. I can be reached at my legislative office by calling 1-800-842-1421, or via e-mail at Judith.G.Freedman@cga.ct.gov. I look forward to hearing from you.