To the Editor:

In last week’s editorial endorsement, we were told that Governor Malloy had stabilized the previous budget.  This week, after the election is over, The Bee editorial tells us that the state is faced with a $1.37B and $1.58B deficit over the next budget cycle according to the Office of Fiscal Analysis. I guess that the editorial writers must be two different people because they completely contradict each other regarding the governor’s stewardship of state finances. 

It is thus painfully obvious that there will probably be another combination of tax increases and borrowing. Here’s why:  the personal income tax coupled with the other taxes imposed two years ago was supposed to contribute half of the estimated budget deficit, with the balance to be obtained from public sector union accommodations and other state cutbacks. The taxpayers ended up paying far more than half of the deficit (over $2B detailed below) while union concessions appears to have amounted to less than a fraction of what we were told they would contribute.  The result?  Entirely predictable deficits in the last budget cycle closed only through additional borrowing and deficits in the next budget cycle. 

According to the state department of revenue, prior to the retroactive tax increase CT taxpayers paid $4,960,954,839 in 2010.  After the tax increases, that figure exploded to $5,689,753,059 in 2011 and $6,238,184,802 in 2012 for a total increase of $2,006,028,183 in just two years.  Newtown’s share of just the increase was $31,418,081.

Where are the official details of the amounts contributed by year from the public sector unions and state government?  The obvious answer is that no such verifiable analysis exists. Even worse, the state has agreed to a no-layoff provision as part of the original deal leaving three options left for the governor, all of which will negatively impact the taxpayer.  He could break his pledge and raise taxes, probably in the form of a millionaire’s tax which always seem to affect non-millionaires, or reduce the amount of state aid thus forcing towns to raise property taxes.  The final option is to continue to borrow money to pay both current expenses and interest on the debt while ringing up even more debt!  This is the most likely option because it is easier to hide. However, someone eventually has to pay the lenders and that someone is the state taxpayer.

Given the options above and the previous editorial support of one-party control of executive positions in this state, which choice above does the editor of The Bee now prefer?  If The Bee prefers higher taxes and borrowing, I wish it would go ahead and just say so instead of trying to have it both ways by supporting someone who has raised, and will continue to raise taxes and borrow while at the same time editorially lamenting the fact that we will soon be faced with an unbalanced budget, yet again. Regrettably, the taxpayers will also have to make up that difference one way or another, yet again. 

Sincerely,

Joe Kearney

9 Daniels Hill Road, Newtown                     November 10, 2014