The Appropriations Committee voted yesterday to approve a Democratic budget that well exceeds the state's constitutionally mandated spending cap, drawing harsh criticism from Gov. Jodi Rell, who says she will not allow the increase to happen. Exceptions to the spending cap require the governor to either an emergency or the existence of extraordinary circumstances, which Rell has said she will not do for the Democratic proposals.
Rell has also proposed exceeding the spending cap, however, in order to provide more money for nursing homes. Democratic lawmakers apparently took this as a signal that she was willing to ignore the cap.
The Democrats' proposal includes the following:
--Allowing families making 150% of the poverty level to enroll in HUSKY
--Eliminating a $3 co-pay for Medicaid fee-for-service recipients
--Restoring cuts made to health services to legal immigrants
--Two more building inspectors
--An increase in funding for UCONN
--More money for municipalities and schools
(Lucas, Keating)
Appropriations Committee co-chair Rep. Denise Merrill said that Rell and the Democrats weren't that far apart. The Democrats plan to spend $261 million more than Rell the first year, $389 million the second--this may seem like very little compared to a budget expected to top $15 billion, but it's still significant. She also showed a distressing lack of understanding of the spending cap:
"I don't think the cap was ever meant to be a straitjacket...I think it was meant to be a guide." (Keating)
Some history for Merrill: The spending cap was enacted as part of the widespread response to the extremely high spending of the O'Neill years, which also included the implementation of the income tax. It was approved by the General Assembly and the voters in 1992. It states:
General budget expenditures authorized for any fiscal year shall not exceed estimated revenue for such fiscal year.
The general assembly shall not authorize an increase in general budget expenditures by the greater of the increase in personal income or the increase in inflation.
Link
Doesn't seem like a "suggestion" to me. That was certainly not the intent of the legislature and the people in 1992. Now, the spending cap has been violated before during the Rowland administration (Rowland in each case declared extraordinary circumstances or an emergency), so this sort of tinkering with it is nothing new. However, the Democrats in the Assembly apparently want to put the cap aside, as they have not clearly explained why their increases deal with extraordinary circumstances or an emergency of some kind.
The Rell budget is stingy in a few crucial areas (why slash health care for immigrants?) and somewhat strange in others (laptops?), but it at least appears to follow the rules set down by the state and the people thirteen years ago. Democrats need to strongly make the case for the most critical of their proposed increases (cities and towns, for example) and bring the governor to the negotiating table. Otherwise they risk losing both the increases and a lot of political good will.
Sources:
Keating, Christopher. "Democrats: Caps Off." Hartford Courant 19 April 2005.
Lucas, Fred. "Rell rips $31.7B spending proposal." Danbury News-Times 19 April 2005.
10 comments:
The money Rell is trying to secure for the Nursing Homes goes directly into the pockets of the private companies running the facilities. It will do little to stabilize the labor issues with the health care workers or dramatically increase care for seniors. On top of that, the nursing homes are still fighting to extend the time line to install sprinklers, which was mandated after the horrible nursing home fire in Hartford. Rell should calm down and try to work with the dems, instead of reacting so irrationally.
Anonymous,
Nursing homes are in an awful state, it's true. Rell is lucky that a strike hasn't blown up (yet).
I was a bit surprised by Rell's vehemence this morning, as well. She's usually pretty calm. They're going to have to work together and cut some sort of deal if they want to get anything done... I'm not sure that partisan posturing by either side will be productive.
If Connecticut imposes a Millionaire's tax, would that bring the budget back into compliance?
Anonymous,
I don't believe so, because the cap is tied to inflation and the increase in personal income, not to tax monies brought in. Here's what we use to calculate the increase in spending:
Expenditures cannot exceed the greater of the percentage increase in personal income or the percentage increase in inflation. Increase in personal income is defined as the average of the annual increase in personal income in the state for each of the preceding five years, according to United States Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Increase in inflation is defined as the increase in the consumer price index for urban consumers during the preceding 12-month period, according to United States Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(from ct.gov.
What happens if the governor doesn't sign off on breaking the spending cap? Would that mean both the dems and her budgets are dead in the water?
Essentially, yes. That's why there's going to be a loooong negotiation.
Scott,
Don't worry. The election's a year and a half away--anything could happen between now and then.
It would be nice to know what the three declared candidates have to say about the budget. Should the cap be exceeded? If so, why? By how much?
They are silent so far. I suppose I can't blame them.
Scott,
Didn't mean to offend. If I did, my apologies for a too-glib response. My point was that it does seem too early to give up on the governor's race next year (especially as none of the declared candidates are in the legislature--could help them) but I agree with you that ignoring the cap is very dangerous. Merrill's comment was especially stupid.
The constitution requires a balanced budget, which is actually more dangerous for Democrats since they'll have to raise taxes to get what they want AND violate the spending cap at the same time. Rell has played this pretty well so far, evoking nothing but a hissy fit from Amman.
I think you're all missing whats happening.
Every mayor,selectmam and other local politician is being crucified because of PROPERTY TAX.The State has to take their fair share and provide more money to the towns or an open revolt is going to happen.This Budget will begin the debate of the shifting from taxing property to taxing wealth.
Let the debate begin.
Do you honestly think someone is going to lose an election by advocating a millionaire’s tax over cuts to health care, cities and towns, and education?
The millionaire’s tax has consistently had about 70-80% support in public opinion polls. A November 2004 Quinnipiac poll finds “Republicans support it 63 - 35 percent and independent voters support it 80 - 17 percent.” Let Rell battle her own base! (Keep in mind that even Rowland once briefly agreed to a millionaire’s tax.)
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=557
And given a choice between Dem tax increases (on the wealthy) and Rell (on low and moderate income through “sin” taxes), guess which one they’ll support? See this paragraph from a March 2004 UCONN survey:
“When residents are asked which tax increase they most support, 40% pick the millionaire’s tax. Increasing the tax on cigarettes follows (33%), while 16% prefer the tax increase on alcohol. A small percentage of residents (7%) choose an increase in the state sales tax.”
If Rell wants to defend the wealthy over smart public investments, bring it on!
Post a Comment