By State Senator Kevin
D. Witkos
It took 237 days and a Special Session for the Connecticut
General Assembly to pass a new two-year state budget,
but the majority party who crafted the fiscal document
(behind closed doors) gave rank and file members of
the legislature less than a day to read the $37.6 billion,
730 page bill. Considering it is the most important
piece of legislation of the next two years, giving members
ample time to read and have input to the budget would
seem like the responsible thing to do. In many ways
this sums up what is going on at the State Capitol these
days.
When the General Assembly convened back in January,
the overwhelming sentiment was that a true bi-partisan
effort was going to be needed to rectify the state’s
record budget deficit. The good will was short lived
however. Spurred on by the national recession, Connecticut
was facing a shortfall in the area of between $6 and
$9 billion. The politicization over the actual size
of the budget deficit became a major obstacle that lasted
throughout the entire legislative session. What everyone
did know was that the state’s budget shortfall
was substantial and while attention could have been
given to finding ways to reduce it, leaders seemed to
be more interested in debating its size.
Many families and businesses in our state continue
to feel the effects of the economic downturn and are
being forced to make some very difficult decisions.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell stressed this point in her budget
address in February. She said that tough decisions and
sacrifices needed to be made, some of them painful,
in order to reduce state spending that has nearly DOUBLED
over the past 15 years.
The fastest area of growth over the past decade and
a half has been in the area of personnel. State employee
costs account for approximately 30% of the state budget.
More state funding goes to the over 50,000 state workers
than any other item in the budget. In April, the State
Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) agreed
to approximately $700 million in concessions with the
state, including early retirement and wage freeze provisions.
In exchange, it guaranteed that all state employees
would be shielded from layoffs for two years.
While I certainly applaud the state employee union
for making these concessions, the no layoff provision
handcuffed the legislature from reducing costs further.
It also took away any opportunity we may have had to
reform or at least restructure state government for
the next two years. If there was ever a time to begin
streamlining our state government to reduce waste and
make it more efficient, now would certainly seem like
the time.
Some have indicated that economic conditions will change
in the near future, but even if they do my concern is
that the budget passed on September 1st cannot be sustained.
Why this concern? A closer look at what passed indicates
that despite reports by some that the state cut spending,
the budget actually INCREASES spending
by $560 million over the next two years. State taxpayers
will be responsible for over $1 billion in new taxes,
including a 10% surcharge on the profits of some of
our state’s larger employers. In addition, the
state hopes to bring in nearly $120 million in fee increases.
All license fees, from teachers and day care providers
to hunters and fishers, will increase. So while families
and businesses are doing what they can to cut costs,
the state is doing nothing except making it harder for
them to make ends meet.
What’s most glaring about this budget is the
fact that it borrows approximately $3.7 billion, which
includes nearly $1 billion to close out FY 2009, and
drains the state’s Rainy Day fund. Because of
this, it is already being projected that the state will
be facing a $3 billion shortfall in 2012. Thus, even
if the economy does improve, the state will be starting
off in a hole, certainly not what I would consider responsible
budgeting.
There are some who believe that passing this budget
was better than not passing one at all. However, by
placing an even greater burden taxpayers and businesses,
this budget will create larger fiscal problems down
the road. Maybe at that point we can get serious about
making the tough decisions that go into reducing costs
to the state.
|
