The House Democrats proposal to make Southwestern Connecticut pay more to Hartford makes me think of George Orwell's dystopian novel Animal Farm where ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
I wish the proposed tax would affect me. I'm not too concerned about the personal well-being of the affected demographic should the new tax become law. What concerns me is some of the language legislators use to promote and defend their proposal. People making a lot of money won't "miss an extra $20 or $30 per week;" "the most fortunate should chip in more," etc. Is this how serious public policy should be presented? I can see Napoleon (George Orwell's pig that is) saying a lot of these same things. Why weren't legislators thinking about the most needy and the programs that serve them in 2005 and 2006, for example, when tax receipts were surprising Hartford to the upside?
Connecticut's original income tax was temporary. A half percent higher and still here... Hartford legislators don't understand what we meant by voting in a balanced budget amendment. It's not "good economy - big spend, bad economy - big tax." Balanced-budgeting presupposes rainy-day and trust funds. You build reserves during good years to cushion the lean years. Fiscal policy should be counter-cyclical, not reinforce the downturn (or stoke the bubbles). We're faced with a state budget deficit of $8 to $9 billion over two years. I'm not sure trying to carve a few more chunks out of the golden goose (Southwestern Connecticut) is an intelligent policy. It may also not be workable; like big corporations, the rich are quite good at avoiding taxes they view as confiscatory.
I wish the proposed tax would affect me. I'm not too concerned about the personal well-being of the affected demographic should the new tax become law. What concerns me is some of the language legislators use to promote and defend their proposal. People making a lot of money won't "miss an extra $20 or $30 per week;" "the most fortunate should chip in more," etc. Is this how serious public policy should be presented? I can see Napoleon (George Orwell's pig that is) saying a lot of these same things. Why weren't legislators thinking about the most needy and the programs that serve them in 2005 and 2006, for example, when tax receipts were surprising Hartford to the upside?
Connecticut's original income tax was temporary. A half percent higher and still here... Hartford legislators don't understand what we meant by voting in a balanced budget amendment. It's not "good economy - big spend, bad economy - big tax." Balanced-budgeting presupposes rainy-day and trust funds. You build reserves during good years to cushion the lean years. Fiscal policy should be counter-cyclical, not reinforce the downturn (or stoke the bubbles). We're faced with a state budget deficit of $8 to $9 billion over two years. I'm not sure trying to carve a few more chunks out of the golden goose (Southwestern Connecticut) is an intelligent policy. It may also not be workable; like big corporations, the rich are quite good at avoiding taxes they view as confiscatory.
