Rep Hovey Displeased With Give And Take On State Budget

By John Voket

(This is the first of a three-part series reviewing key legislative actions endorsed or opposed by local lawmakers in the 2005 session, which concluded June 8.)

Local lawmaker DebraLee Hovey was more than disappointed at the outcome of this year’s state budget vote. The Republican representative whose district covers Monroe and part of southern Newtown said earlier this week, that the two-year state budget approved by the state House of Representatives takes more from money from local taxpayers than it gives back, breaks the state’s Constitutional Spending Cap, and could result in the loss of hundreds of family farms in Connecticut.

The budget proposal (House Bill 6940) was approved 100-50 early Tuesday morning, with most Democrats supporting the proposal and most Republicans voting to reject it.

“I went through the numbers in this budget several times before voting to reject it,” Rep Hovey said. “The 112th District will pay far more in taxes than it will get back from the state in the form of state grants for our schools and for infrastructure improvements that make our highways and bridges safer for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.”

Rep Hovey said in a release that by giving almost unanimous support to this spending package, the majority Democrats turned their backs on the overwhelming majority of voters who ratified the spending cap in 1991.

“The increase in this budget is three times the increase in the cost of living — and it violates the spending cap for three years in a row: this year, next year, and the year after that, ” Rep Hovey said. “With this year’s projected surplus expected to total $700 million, the responsible thing to do would have been to deposit it in the state’s rainy day fund or use it to help pay off the state’s bonded indebtedness.”

She likened the action to inheriting $10,000 and spending it “…on a new fur coat instead of using it to replace a leaky roof.”

As a self-proclaimed conservationist who supports farmland preservation and the protection of undeveloped open space and forested areas, Rep Hovey said she was appalled by new inheritance taxes that are included in the budget.

“Because most farms consist of several acres that could be valued in the millions if passed on intact, many second or third generation farm families would have to sell their properties to developers to settle the estate tax bill they would owe the state,” she said. “We could be looking at the loss of hundreds of Connecticut farms as a direct result of the death tax increases included in this budget.”

Other diverse initiatives supported by Rep Hovey were approved or included in approved legislation that passed in the final days of the 2005 session.

Late last Friday, the state House of Representatives gave final legislative approval to a bill originally sponsored by Hovey that will require health insurance coverage for medically necessary infertility diagnosis and treatment expenses.

“This legislation will give new hope to couples who have been unable to conceive and cannot afford the high cost of infertility treatments,” said Rep Hovey.

 On the same day, Governor M. Jodi Rell signed another bill cosponsored by state Rep Hovey strengthening a state statute requiring young children riding in motor vehicles to wear seat belts and other restraint systems.

“It will help prevent children who are passengers in a motor vehicle from receiving serious and possibly fatal injuries should an accident occur,” Rep Hovey said. That bill extends child restraint system use requirements from children under age 4 weighing less than 40 pounds to children under age 7 or who weigh less than 60 pounds, regardless of age.

It also requires any child under age 1 or weighing less than 20 pounds to be transported in a rear-facing position in his child restraint system, and requires children restrained in booster seats to be anchored by a seat belt that includes a shoulder belt.

The state House of Representatives also approved a bill cosponsored by Rep Hovey that would prohibit the sale of gift certificates that are subject to expiration dates. Under current law, a gift card is presumed abandoned if it is not used within three years. If the owner fails to redeem it within three years, its value is transferred to the state treasury.

“This is a consumer-friendly measure that will enable people who receive [gift cards and certificates] as birthday or Christmas gifts to use them at their discretion,” Rep Hovey said.