What we asked
We reached out to the local candidates for the state senate and state house races via our editorial page and asked them:
1.) There has been a lot of discussion the past year about the economic situation in Connecticut. For the Democrats, since they hold the governor’s office and the General Assembly, what things have been done and are in the pipeline that have improved or will improve the situation and how would you push the efforts even further? And for the Republicans, what has been done incorrectly and if the Republicans take the majority in Hartford, what would you do to improve the state’s economic situation?
2.) The past few months has seen discussion about property tax reform in Connecticut—with the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities putting its weight behind reform. First of all, do you think the state is in need of reform… secondly, why do you feel that way and if what can be done if change is needed.
3.) Aside from the above questions, what do you see as the single biggest issue facing the state in the next two years and how would you like it addressed?
Peter Del Mastro
Republican
79th District
1.) Gov. Dannel Malloy and his allies in the state legislature have created a toxic economic environment in Connecticut that is driving retirees, young people, and businesses out of the state. This is a trifecta of tragic consequences caused by high taxes (among the highest in the country), barely perceptible economic growth (0.06 percent last time I checked) and anemic job growth (only 81 percent of jobs lost during the great recession of 2008 have been recovered); to make matters worse, the jobs replacing those that were lost are not of the same high quality.
When I am elected, these are things I will fight for in the legislature to start making positive changes that will improve Connecticut’s economic climate: First, cut wasteful spending (no more CTFastrak busways or corporate welfare). Second, improve the efficiency of state government (no more $60 million dollar software upgrades that make operations worse, not better). Third, tax cuts (everyone needs one, but I want to start by exempting the first $40,000 of retirement income from the state income tax to give our struggling seniors a helping hand). Fourth, rescind burdensome regulations that drive-up employers’ costs of doing business without producing proportional benefits. Fifth, rescind unfunded mandates that drive up the cost of doing business for municipalities.
2.) Property taxes are too high. There is almost universal agreement on that statement. Why property taxes are too high is another matter entirely. Municipalities like Hartford, that have been plagued by decades of financial mis-management, are mostly (but not entirely) to blame for their current plight.
Municipalities like Bristol, that have practiced sound financial management for decades, have been victimized by a state legislature that all too frequently passes legislation that directs municipalities to operate in a certain way, regardless of the financial impact, without providing funding to offset the inevitable increased cost of doing so; these are the dreaded Unfunded Mandates.
Property taxes are the major source of funding for the services municipal government provides to its citizens. We all want good schools for our kids, well maintained roads to drive on and, most importantly, the protection provided by police, fire and other emergency services personnel. They all cost money; there is no such thing as a free lunch.
When state government offers help with property tax reform, we need to exercise extreme care. Such help comes with a price; typically that price is a loss of some degree of control. We need to be especially leery when the goal is to “equalize;” that is often a euphemism for “subsidize.” I will work to ensure that the “Bristols” of Connecticut are not put into a position of enabling the bad behavior of the “Hartfords” of Connecticut.
3.) Jobs. Plentiful, well paying, private sector jobs with great benefits. In order to get there, we need to make structural changes to Connecticut’s business environment, changes that will allow employers to grow and prosper, changes that will cause businesses to seek Connecticut out as a place to locate a new facility, changes that will allow us to stop paying employers “ransom” in order to get them to come to Connecticut or not move out.
$1.3 billion. That is how much money Gov. Malloy has committed to give to fewer than two dozen companies so they will come to, or not leave, Connecticut. The remaining hundreds of thousands of employers are left to deal with the toxic economic environment that is killing job growth. Would it not have been better to use that money to fund systemic reforms that would have benefited all Connecticut employers, not just those that won the Malloy “Lottery”? I think so.
At the risk of repeating myself, here are the things we need to do: First, cut wasteful spending. Second, improve the efficiency of state government. Third, tax cuts. Fourth, rescind burdensome regulations. Fifth, rescind unfunded mandates.
Chris Ziogas
Democrat
79th District
1.) a.) The Sikorsky deal. This deal passed unanimously, and kept 8,000 well paying jobs in Conn. This means continued state income taxes, continued property taxes for the local towns, and a large spin-off of supporting jobs for the military and aerospace industries.
The criticism of such deals is that we will be hostage to further corporate threats.
This is true; this is the world we live in. Every state wants our employers as much as we do. They are willing to lure them away just as Massachusetts did with GE. The loss of GE is no where near the loss of Sikorsky. We meet each deal as it arises.
b.) Pension reform. The state’s debt burden is in large part pension obligations to its workforce. Gov.Rowland, Gov.Rell each tried reforms that proved to be unsuccessful and the obligations loom larger. Gov. Malloy has taken the responsible position of trying to pay down the liability more aggressively. The liability was created over several administrations and it may take several more to
get it where it should be.
c.)The Governor and legislature have negotiated labor concessions which are fair and honest. Such well meaning efforts will contribute to the financial welfare of the state. There will be more negotiations to come as both parties need to share in future success of the state.
d.) Rating agencies have applauded Connecticut for its transparency in government reporting and financial disclosures. Maintaining transparency is essential to honest politics and allows the public to hold its officials accountable for their actions.
2.) CCM has stated the obvious in that we are taxing our citizens to pay for government and has proposed some changes to how Connecticut should deal with local governments’ reliance on property taxes in their budgets. They would have the state pick up a larger piece of local educational costs. While cost shifting from the municipalities to the state may sound good to some, there are implications as to what segment of the tax paying public the costs will fall.
They did have an idea that had more merit in that they proposed that local jurisdictions may impose taxes on such things as sales of goods, and hotel stays. They suggest regional councils for taxation to give stores more option in locating.
3.) a.) Heroin is huge problem in this state and the nation. It is a problem widely acknowledged among the younger ages, and hardly visible to most older folk. In Bristol alone, there are 18 deaths this year attributed to drug abuses, and 888 projected statewide. The reasons for it may be under-employment, lack of a vision for the future, progression from prescription medications, and very cheap and easily available drugs. This drug problem has been with us for some time, (think Methadone clinics). It is a problem that cuts across ages and socio-economic standing.
It is a problem that must be aggressively addressed as accessibility makes it likely to invade our high school populations. It not only kills us, it funds our foes.
The solution centers in our drug education programs, our judicial response to those afflicted, and a much better effort from our federal agencies, via the states, to stop this.
Unprecedented level of trafficking. The only casualties of the now 30 year old war on drugs are our young people. The Connecticut legislature has taken steps in this direction, but we need to do more.
b.) Transportation. We need to expand the transportation system. There are too many cars for the available lanes. The CTFastrak is a step in the right direction. Bristol is at the end of the line but other towns see growth around the bus way.
It is likely to benefit Bristol if we can act on the downtown parcel. Critics are quick to condemn it, but they have not given it enough time. It was conceived in the Rowland years, passed along by Gov. Rell, and accepted by Gov. Malloy. He inherited a program that was 10 years in the making and too far along to do anything but make the best of it.
We need to give it time, it might just work.
In addition, Connecticut needs to re-build its highway infrastructure to attract new business opportunities. Our highways are crowded and difficult to travel. We need to continue to invest in ourselves.