OP-ED: The State Of Things Yet To Come
by Heath W. Fahle | Feb 7, 2010 6:01am
(27) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
After months of political clashes between legislative leaders and the Governor, Connecticut’s fiscal position for the current year remains $515 million in deficit , according to the most recent update from State Comptroller Nancy Wyman. The next fiscal year, which begins July 1, is another $686 million in the red. But these titan sums are trifles compared to what is yet to come.
According to current state forecasts included in the Three Year Budget Report that accompanied the Governor’s midterm budget adjustment proposals this week, fiscal year 2012 is projected to be $2.7 billion in the hole and the following year will be $2.4 billion to the negative. The use of one-time revenue sources, tax increases, federal stimulus dollars, and a reckless amount of bonding has obfuscated this reality in the near term budgets, but with those single shots exhausted, policy makers must now confront a real picture of the state’s finances.
The problem has lent itself to solutions that fall into one of two camps: either raise additional revenue to pay for the state government Colossus or pare it back down to an affordable level.
Some legislative leaders have returned again and again to what they sometimes euphemistically term “revenue enhancement.” But even with the additions from the recently-adopted income tax increases, the state is still projected to take in $1 billion less revenue in FY10 than they did in FY07 or FY08. Closing the structural gap with tax increases would require a 20 percent across-the-board tax increase. With a state whose population has gotten steadily older while job growth has been basically flat for twenty years, it seems clear that relying on tax hikes to solve the problem just isn’t going to work.
This leaves the onus squarely on spending.
Every spending reduction inevitably meets with the hue and cry of its constituent group, as was seen in last year’s battle over the state’s various advocacy commissions. Though combined the six advocacy commissions represented just $4 million in an $18 billion budget, the Governor’s proposal to eliminate them prompted a flurry of tearful testimony and legislative chest-thumping. The Governor has recommended them for elimination again this year.
But those battles will pale in comparison to the fights ahead if the size of government is to be truly reduced. Putting out services to competitive bidding on a wide scale seems like a logical solution that has met with appealing results in other states. The State of Washington, for example, reformed their personnel system in 2005 by allowing state agencies to competitively contract for services previously provided by state employees, which yielded some dramatic savings. Spinning off some government functions to the private sector also has to be on the table. One study showed that privately-run prison systems, for example, have allowed some states to reduce corrections’ budgets by as much as 10 percent.
It will take the political tenacity of a junkyard dog to implement such significant reforms. A cursory review of the current political leadership doesn’t leave much room for optimism on that front. Their strategy to this point has been largely to ignore the problem in hopes it will go away. Deciding how to solve a $500 million deficit has been painful enough. One can’t help but shudder to think about the political bloodshed necessary to close $5 billion in deficits.
Heath W. Fahle is a policy analyst and consultant based in Manchester, CT. He currently works as the Policy Director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy, a nonpartisan think tank based at Trinity College in Hartford, and the principal of Revolutionary Strategies, LLC, a website design and communications consulting firm.
(27) Comments
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | February 7, 2010 3:46pm
The prison system is a perfect microcosm of CT’s problems. The CT population hasn’t grown since 1970 yet the prison system has swallowed resource after resource. Apparently human nature has changed and we are now more criminal than in 1970. Either that or the legislature has worked over time to create an industry of wealth destruction that creates negative value for society.
From the DOC : With an initial budget of $13.7 million in 1969, the agency administered 3,145 male and female offenders in its facilities. In contrast, fiscal year 2006-2007 saw the agency administering a budget of more than $600-million and incarcerating more than 19,000 offenders with another 4,500 under supervision in the community and a workforce of some 7,000 men and women.
By the end of the 1980’s the decade had seen the incarcerated population double, the staffing level triple and the agency budget quadruple. etc. etc. etc.
posted by: CT Jim | February 8, 2010 7:33am
You want a smaller prison population??
Try good paying jobs!!!
You talk 1970 and the amount of people in prison, you are so right and if you look at the records UNION density was at it’s highest at that point!
If you give a man or woman a GOOD paying job he or she doesn’t feel the nessesity to steal.
Don’t stop at the 70’s though look to the 80’s that great decade of prison growth, yes sir good ol’ Ronnie reagans asault on the working man and his race to the bottom has brought us what we have today. bankrupted economys on the local state and national levels.
You could spend $100 trillion stimulating this economy and never get out of this mess because this economy doesn’t produce GOOD paying jobs!!
We need to raise the marginal rate for the top 2% back to 70%, we need to ecourage every worker to get a voice and join a UNION! This country will NEVER recover from Regans assault without a steep rise in wages.
Productivity has risen by 150% since 1980 and the american worker has got NOTHING to show for it!!
Stand up AMERICA!!
posted by: iBlogWestHartford | February 8, 2010 10:58am
Mr. Fahle provides interesting analysis.
But by starting out with an exceedingly narrow vision of the state’s available budget options, he (like most of the budget analysis I’ve been reading) puts himself—and the state—in an “artificial hole” that seems to leave only draconian choices.
> Like “reducing the size of government” or “streamlining” government”—which, of course, are clichéd euphemisms for cutting off services for the unemployed, the sick, those in foreclosure, the disabled, etc.—
> While slicing taxes on the wealthiest and corporations in a “trickle down” frenzy that will, as always, raise all yachts while sinking the rest of us.
If he wants to be intellectually honest, Mr. Fahle—and the rest of the “mainstream” pundits and press—must take a close, honest look at the budget alternatives offered by Voices for CT Children. They are detailed. They are well thought out. They make fiscal sense. They make moral sense.
And you can leave your junkyard dogs at home…
The Voices budget info is at:
http://www.ctkidslink.org/announcement_103.html
Thanks.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | February 8, 2010 12:00pm
The $625 Million in Department of Corrections expenditures doesn’t include the Capital debt for prison construction (CT has the highest per capita state debt at over $6,000 per capita) or the current pensions and health benefits for DOC retirees and the unfunded pension liabilities going forward for current DOC employees.
Here’s the cruel reality: If CT was to offer the non-violent prisoners a choice of being whipped or caned and released rather than serve time and a couple years of probationary oversight it would be declared cruel and inhumane punishment.
The choice to be tortured rather than spend time under the thumbs of the DOC would be by far the most popular choice for punishment by prisoners.
Is there something wrong there? That the CT system is more brutal and punishing than the third-world punishments we look down on?
The prisone industry has sold this state a plate of foo and the Legisature and Governor’s have lapped it up.
Don’t beleive me? Give the non-violent prisoners a choice—third world torture and release or the DOC. The Corrections industry will oppose that choice hand, tooth and nail. They know the answer.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | February 8, 2010 12:21pm
CT Voices for Children has its own agenda. States like Oregon that get very little of their state revenue from Corporate Taxes are outright killing CT in Job Growth over the last 20 years. They are ‘business friendly’.
2010 measures of busness friendliness.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59.pdf
A more Progressive income tax? OK. Why?
To fund State services as they are now without real government reform? Naah.
SustiNet? Maybe. Close all the related non-profits that get CT or Fed funds and the patchwork of state insurance and reinsurance funds and the money to emergency rooms, etc. OK.
Projected 2012 Deficit according to Wyman? $3.4 Billion. SustiNet? Another Billion. Unfunded Pension and Liabilities? Another Billion a year.
$5.4 Billion to get the budget right for 2012.
The State needs to choose over things like Health Care for themselves or supporting the prison industry.
Those fundamental choices are the most important
posted by: thomas hooker | February 8, 2010 11:36pm
He currently works as the Policy Director of the Fahle works for the “Yankee Institute for Public Policy, a nonpartisan think tank based at Trinity College in Hartford”.
“Non-partisan”? Did you really just write that? That right-wing think tank is somehow “non-partisan”? I suppose that’s about as honest as everything else Fahle wrote here.
“Non-partisan”! Sure it is! Like you’re fooling us!
posted by: Heath | February 9, 2010 11:41am
iBlogWestHartford:
Like “reducing the size of government” or “streamlining” government”—which, of course, are clichéd euphemisms for cutting off services for the unemployed, the sick, those in foreclosure, the disabled, etc
I didn’t and do not propose willy-nilly elimination of services simply for the sake of doing so. But the state clearly cannot afford the government it currently has.
Shifting government services to non-profit providers or private vendors is one clear step that can reduce the state’s costs.
The task is to maintain or improve the services that are currently provided, but do it in a less costly fashion. Scaring people with red herrings about “cutting off services for the employed, the sick, or those in foreclosure” doesn’t solve the problem.
posted by: Heath | February 9, 2010 11:52am
“Non-partisan”? Did you really just write that? That right-wing think tank is somehow “non-partisan”?
The Yankee Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that approaches public policy questions from a free market, limited government perspective.
But meaning nonpartisan doesn’t mean that our approach isn’t decidedly conservative on fiscal issues. It is.
I suppose that’s about as honest as everything else Fahle wrote here.
You can disagree with what I wrote, but the facts speak for themselves.
I cited my sources for the numbers and so you can check them for yourself. But they are accurate.
You can have your own opinions, but you don’t get your own facts.
posted by: iBlogWestHartford | February 9, 2010 3:38pm
Heath,
I disagree with you completely on every point you make,
BUT -
I very much appreciate your taking the time to respond to commenters. I hope that all the op-ed writers here do the same. It can enhance discussions, it is polite, and it would set this news site light years ahead of most everything else on the web in CT.
posted by: CT Jim | February 10, 2010 10:36am
Funny,
If these organizations like “The Yankee Institute”
The “Heritage Foundation”
along with a few others always seem to be quoted by right wing politicians and right wing talk radio.
exactly how non-partisan are they??
The fact that you call yourself non-parisan does not necessarily mean its true.
posted by: SuzyQ | February 10, 2010 11:47am
“fiscal year 2012 is projected to be $2.7 billion in the hole and the following year will be $2.4 billion to the negative…” I am seeking clarification on the debt and deficit numbers in Heath’s article. Questions: What is the dollar level of all current debt from borrowing and delayed payments on contracts? What percentage of CT’s gross domestic product is going to pay off debt? How many years does it typically take to pay off any one particular bond? What is the annual debt payment currently? What is this payment per household? What percentage of the debt is for capital projects?
Answers to these questions will expose the level of borrowing for every day costs of running government versus capital projects, which for the most part, can be justified.
posted by: CT Jim | February 10, 2010 12:00pm
it’s pretty easy and simplistic to put wages out on a web page, it’s also math 101 to state if you take out the wages, benifits and pensions of public sector workers you come up with sum “A” benifit to the budget.
But realistically you would also have to factor in the cost of Unemployement, the cost of cobra payments made by the federal government.
Then you have to factor in the drag on the economic structure of the state with WAY less revenue in the sales tax and income tax, based on the FACT that these so called disposable workers will not make enough to pay state or federal taxes coupled with the FACT that most of these workers are homeowners who would no longer pay property taxes.
Their children will end up on Husky as well as on the free lunch programs at their schools dragging local budgets into the drink.Not to mention the devastation to local small businesses they have supported for years.
And i fiqured all this out without an institute and without that Ivy league degree, which gets me to thinking are our best and the brightest really that “smart” if they lack the ability to look beyond their non-partisan pro business noses?
posted by: thomas hooker | February 10, 2010 5:28pm
Mr. Fahle actually insists that his Yankee Institute is “non-partisan”. And that’s ridiculous. His bio says he works for the “Yankee Institute for Public Policy, a nonpartisan think tank based at Trinity College in Hartford”. Only when challenged does he add that the Yankee Institute “approaches public policy questions from a free market, limited government perspective.” and that “meaning nonpartisan doesn’t mean that our approach isn’t decidedly conservative on fiscal issues.”
Let’s be honest, shall we? The Yankee Institute is as “non-partisan” as Fox News and the Heritage Foundation. Though they don’t technically answer to the Republican, they most certainly do the bidding of the Republican Party. Yankee Institute and the other so-called “think tanks” are the unofficial public relations arms of the Republican Party, they’re stocked with conservative Republicans, they’re funded by big Republican donors, and they coordinate their issues with Republican politicians.
Is Heath Fahle going to tell us that Bill O’Reilly is “non-partisan”? Glen Beck? Sean Hannity? Fox News itself? Maybe. But if he does, he fails the laugh test.
Yankee Institute should be identified on this website as a conservative think tank that supports Republican policy positions. Christine Stuart owes us that much honesty.
And those are the facts. Your trying to pretend to be non-partisan is ridiculous- and false.
posted by: Heath | February 10, 2010 8:21pm
I very much appreciate your taking the time to respond to commenters. I hope that all the op-ed writers here do the same. It can enhance discussions, it is polite, and it would set this news site light years ahead of most everything else on the web in CT.
No problem.
posted by: Heath | February 10, 2010 8:26pm
Funny,
If these organizations like “The Yankee Institute”
The “Heritage Foundation”
along with a few others always seem to be quoted by right wing politicians and right wing talk radio.
exactly how non-partisan are they??
The fact that you call yourself non-parisan does not necessarily mean its true.
You are conflating party with ideology. They are very much seperate concepts.
Only when challenged does he add that the Yankee Institute “approaches public policy questions from a free market, limited government perspective.” and that “meaning nonpartisan doesn’t mean that our approach isn’t decidedly conservative on fiscal issues.”
Oh you’ve gotten me. We hide our stripes only when challenged… or when people visit our website.
The first thing any visitor reads? “Creating New Ideas for Better Government and Lower Taxes in Connecticut Since 1984”. If we are trying to hide our philosophical approach, we aren’t doing a very good job.
posted by: Heath | February 10, 2010 8:37pm
CT Jim said:
Then you have to factor in the drag on the economic structure of the state with WAY less revenue in the sales tax and income tax, based on the FACT that these so called disposable workers will not make enough to pay state or federal taxes coupled with the FACT that most of these workers are homeowners who would no longer pay property taxes.
I didn’t and don’t advocate willy-nilly purges of public employees, as I’ve already addressed on this thread. The task is to replicate and improve the services currently provided by the public sector in the non-profit and private sectors of the economy.
The status quo, which clearly isn’t working, won’t get you far.
posted by: ACR | February 11, 2010 7:23am
CT Jim said:
You want a smaller prison population??
Try good paying jobs!!!
You talk 1970 and the amount of people in prison, you are so right and if you look at the records UNION density was at it’s highest at that point!
If you give a man or woman a GOOD paying job he or she doesn’t feel the necessity to steal.
What’s the literacy rate in prison Jim?
Got any idea?
Further, why are we hell-bent to lock up non-violent offenders just long enough to be sure they lose their jobs?
Seems short-sighted doesn’t it?
You are correct in citing labor union density as a leading cause for our shrinking manufacturing base.
One would have expected union leadership to learn how far they could push before an employer simply picked up and moved; but in too many cases you were proven correct and leadership proved substantially more dense than one might have guessed.
However some of us have had enough of this constant union-bashing.
While not groundless, it totally overlooks overzealous OSHA employees (A $2500 fine for mounting a fire extinguisher 2 inches too high or low?)
This coupled with equally over-eager EPA & CT DEP agents has sent at least as many jobs overseas as unrealistic and thus expensive union rules. (ie: An electrician holding a ladder while another electrician changes a light bulb; both called in on overtime, of course.)
In closing, it’s time we placed the blame for the nation’s shrinking manufacturing base and our skyrocketing prison population where it belongs - it’s mostly Al Gores fault, but we all know that somehow Don Williams has had something to do with it too don’t we?
posted by: CT Jim | February 11, 2010 9:35am
Your right the literacy rate for convicts is low, but is that areason to lock them up instead of training them?
Is the fact that we left them out of the education system mean we should throw them to the curb once again.
My Father grew up during the depression and was a tool maker in a union shop and took care of a family with 4 kids and we werent saints.
After he passed I need his discharge papers from the military to get him a foot stone from the VA on it was his school history.
On it it said LAST grade completed, it was the 7th grade!
My father was great man and seemed much more inteligent than the average person but according to your position he should have been in prison.And according to some ex congressman from Texas he shouldn’t have been allowed to vote!
During the years of HIGH unionization there were millions of storys like my dads but as companies like UTC and their insatiable desire for more and more profits the only place for these people is prisons?
It wasn’t union greed. My father retired in 1986 and his highest yearly income was $37,000 and he had to work 12 hours a day seven days a week in a GM parts plant to get it.
Is that greedy?
Unions or the american worker for that matter cant compete with a country (China) that pays its workers $53 a MONTH and who won’t value their currency on the open market so we CAN compete.
posted by: CT Jim | February 11, 2010 9:39am
Heath,
In many other states they have tried most of what your talking about and the vast majority of the work has gone back to the public sector with the tax payers holding the bag and the bill for the boondogle.
Public sector employees take pride in their work and have plenty of ideas to streamline their workload but the administration refuses to listen and quite frankly people like yourself would just rather punt it to someone else.
posted by: gerardw | February 12, 2010 3:24pm
Perhaps some of the critics of the Yankee institute’s self-description as nonpartisan could give an example of another institution which meets their idea of nonpartisan?
posted by: CT Jim | February 13, 2010 9:33am
The congressional Budget office,
The center for disease control, Just to name a couple. And if you really want to see if they are non partisan one would have to look at HOW they are funded.I am sure they are funded by non-partisan business groups and corporations. LOL
posted by: gerardw | February 13, 2010 12:47pm
Branches of the fed government? Copout answer. How about an NGO?
posted by: CT Jim | February 13, 2010 11:29pm
So you are saying that I am coping out because the only agencys that I can find that are TRULY non-partisan are ones that are forced to be non-partisan by the government?
Guilty.
Thats the point, these windbag organizations CLAIMING to be non-partisan are not and they and YOU know it.
Thats the problem.
Instead of saying we are non partisan just say our organization is not registered to vote but we are funded by people who tend to be right wing or left for that matter and we gear our results to match our backers.
There you go quick, easy, to the point without having to BS anybody.
Having these organizations say they are non-partisan is like the tea party say they are independent who hate both partys.
We know thats not true.
posted by: gerardw | February 14, 2010 10:17am
Words have connotative and denotative meanings. While the denotative meaning of nonpartisan may be “without viewpoint” in American politics the commonly used connotative meaning is “without regard to political party.”
posted by: CT Jim | February 15, 2010 10:04am
Thats not really true.
When one talks about a liberal view they right away think DEMOCRATIC “Party”
When one talks with a conservative view they think REPUBLICAN “Party”
So your assretion just dosen’t hold water here.
A truly non-partisan or as you would say with no regard to party, would have both sides of an equation with multiple results based on a multitued
of facts.
This group does not have that.
It is clearly associated with conservative policies that envelop the right wing of the REPUBLICAN “Party”
So please come up with something that a lay person can believe.
Your assumption once again is dvoid of “FACT”
posted by: lothar | February 16, 2010 12:25am
Actually, fiscal conservatism crosses party lines. It’s just good money management, a concept both parties fail to recognize here on many many occasions.
posted by: CT Jim | February 16, 2010 8:46am
Fiscal conservatism on one hand does cross party lines which is one reason why the last president to have a surpluss was a Dem as was the last president to have the country in the black.
This stuff is not that type of fiscal conservatism.
It is more like the Ronny Reagan lets blame it on the workers while spending on garbage like drunking sailors.
This is ideological conservatism which is PURELY a Republican birth mark.
Please can you guys have one answer that sounds like “hey ummm your right ” “this aint no non-partisan place”
I know it’s not what Frank Luntz would tell you to say but it is the truth.
