It seems like yesterday, but two decades have passed since
then-Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker signed a state income tax into
law.
And while many of us can vividly recall the huge taxpayer
rallies which were held at the State Capitol during that time, we may have
forgotten that the hated tax hike was tied to a measure which restricted state
government spending increases to inflation and personal income increases.
They called it the “Spending Cap” – a cap on the amount of
your money our state officials could spend. It aimed to reassure a nervous public that the tax on our
personal income would not become the politicians’ license to spend.
Fast forward to today.
The income tax has not proven to be the cure-all for
Connecticut’s budget problems. In fact, it has proven to be the
predecessor to a variety of other tax hikes, including the recent
record-setting tax hikes on sales, estates, corporate profits and, yes, the
income tax.
Meanwhile, the spending of your money has not been brought
under control. Your state government
continues to have a penchant for spending whatever revenue becomes available.
This year, there is a move by Democrats in Hartford to
change the definition of the “Spending Cap”. By altering the definition,
the majority party would be able to enact future spending increases. In
other words, the “Spending Cap” - one of our only checks on runaway government
spending - would be forever altered.
I have a big problem with that idea of handing our elected
officials more blank checks to spend even more of your money, and I hope you see
why.
Think of a family on a budget. Let’s say a family has
been spending more money than the household is taking in as income. To
get back on track, you agree to abide by a spending allowance of a certain
amount each week. Sure, there are temptations to spend on unnecessary
items, but common sense usually prevails and the disciplined approach proves to
be the best long term solution.
In the State of Connecticut’s case, changing the definition
of the spending cap to suit elected officials’ spending habits would be a
terrible mistake. Our state is broke, yet we continue to borrow, tax and
spend your money as if there will be no consequences to the spree.
There of course will be consequences. They will arrive
in the form of higher debt and even more taxes on our children and
grandchildren.
The bill to unscrew the spending cap is House Bill 6352. I
hope you will join me in opposing the move to give our legislature a license to
spend.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
CT Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Creates More Problems
Tonight the
Connecticut Senate voted to approve allowing undocumented immigrants the
opportunity to receive an official state driver’s license. Following nearly six
hours of debate with minority Republicans expressing numerous concerns of
identification security, the measure passed 19-16 with only two Democrats
opposing the measure.
Four states currently offer licenses for undocumented immigrants – Illinois, New Mexico, Utah and Washington. Two of these states have unsuccessfully attempted to repeal their law. According to the Connecticut General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Research, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez has pushed to repeal the law, arguing that it leads to fraud, human trafficking, organized crime, and significant security concerns.
Seven states previously offered licenses for undocumented immigrants but repealed their laws – Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee and California. Two of these states are reconsidering their repeal.
Why have nine states – 82% of the states currently or previously offering licenses for undocumented immigrants – repealing their laws? Sounds like problems to me!
I opposed the bill in Connecticut because the proposal clearly had many weaknesses the majority Democrats refused to address.
One of the major flaws in the bill is requiring a background check that only looks at Connecticut criminal history. Background checks required for the purchase of guns in our state requires a national criminal check yet this proposal only checks in-state criminal records. Why?
Undocumented immigrants have a high likelihood of transiency – meaning they often cross state borders. Why are the Democrats ignoring this fact? Why are law-abiding gun owners who are U.S. citizens held to a thorough national background check while undocumented immigrants in Connecticut need only have a clean record in one state to pass muster and be issued an official government identification document?
Connecticut legislators are not empowered to enact federal immigration laws. Our national illegal immigration problem must be fixed in Washington. Issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants is poor public policy and should not be enacted in Connecticut until our federal government fixes our broken immigration system.
Four states currently offer licenses for undocumented immigrants – Illinois, New Mexico, Utah and Washington. Two of these states have unsuccessfully attempted to repeal their law. According to the Connecticut General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Research, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez has pushed to repeal the law, arguing that it leads to fraud, human trafficking, organized crime, and significant security concerns.
Seven states previously offered licenses for undocumented immigrants but repealed their laws – Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee and California. Two of these states are reconsidering their repeal.
Why have nine states – 82% of the states currently or previously offering licenses for undocumented immigrants – repealing their laws? Sounds like problems to me!
I opposed the bill in Connecticut because the proposal clearly had many weaknesses the majority Democrats refused to address.
One of the major flaws in the bill is requiring a background check that only looks at Connecticut criminal history. Background checks required for the purchase of guns in our state requires a national criminal check yet this proposal only checks in-state criminal records. Why?
Undocumented immigrants have a high likelihood of transiency – meaning they often cross state borders. Why are the Democrats ignoring this fact? Why are law-abiding gun owners who are U.S. citizens held to a thorough national background check while undocumented immigrants in Connecticut need only have a clean record in one state to pass muster and be issued an official government identification document?
Connecticut legislators are not empowered to enact federal immigration laws. Our national illegal immigration problem must be fixed in Washington. Issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants is poor public policy and should not be enacted in Connecticut until our federal government fixes our broken immigration system.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Tax Freedom Day Comes LAST to CT!
Last year, “Tax Freedom Day” arrived in Connecticut May
5th.
Tax Freedom Day measures how long Americans work to earn
enough money to pay the year’s tax obligations at the federal, state and local
levels. On May 5, 2012, Connecticut had the dubious distinction of being the
last state to achieve “freedom.”
This year, Connecticut has finally attained tax freedom on
May 13. Again, we are the last state to be free of taxes for the year. It took
us eight more days to accomplish that last place finish.
And your tax freedom could arrive even later in 2014.
Why?
- The largest gas tax hike in Connecticut history is
scheduled to take effect July 1.
- Taxes on businesses, which were supposed to sunset this
year, might not.
- State
aid to cities and towns is being shifted and could result in higher local
property taxes.
- Connecticut
could soon approve borrowing hundreds of millions of your tax dollars to
pay for ongoing state expenses. Guess who will be called upon to pay
off those maxed-out credit card bills?
Have you had
enough?
I hope you will
stand with me in demanding spending cuts and reductions to our
highest-in-the-nation tax burdens.
How can you
help?
Call your state legislators. Call Governor Malloy at 860-566-4840. If they don’t
respond, keep calling them.
On this “Tax
Freedom Day”, we recognize that our freedom is being eroded.
Together, we can reclaim
it, but I need you to demand it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)