Op-Ed: Restoring Yankee Thrift

Print More

The state of Connecticut is broke. This is despite its status as America’s wealthiest and most educated state. Our government is the least popular in the country for good reason: it repeatedly hiked taxes and wasted so much money that we’re unprepared for the next recession. The Dan Malloy Democrats let the government unions pillage the state. The have run out of money in Hartford; now they are coming to loot New Canaan by transferring their liabilities to us.

Do we let a set of bankrupt ideas bankrupt our state or will homeowners and taxpayers say that enough is enough? We know where the money is going: the Dan Malloy Democrats are shoveling it to the government unions as fast as possible. Much of that money goes from overtaxed Connecticut workers to pensioners living in Florida where they pay no state income tax. It can’t go on that way, so it won’t. There is no Berlin wall—if taxpayers can escape, they will.

Ultimately, Connecticut’s liberalism will not be defeated by conservatism; it will be defeated by reality. Our tax-and-spend government teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, propped up by the most mobile of industries: financial services. With 24 hours and a U-Haul, a hedge fund can leave. Connecticut would get downgraded with the flight of just a few funds. For example, if Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio flees, those left behind will sink underneath our crushing debt.

We know what to do: the opposite of what the Dan Malloy Democrats have done to the state and want to do to our towns. We cut red tape that hampers job formation. We cut wasteful spending. We cut the taxes that make us uncompetitive. We rein in the government unions that control the state for their own benefit. Connecticut is a place to escape from—just ask General Electric, Aetna or Beretta—but we can make it a place to escape to.

Can the principles of limited government and free markets grow in New England’s rocky soil? We have a chance to restore our town governments in 2017 and our state government in 2018. We are starting right now at the local level. If you want to help, please like us on Facebook in order to stay in touch. The state government proves how badly government can fail; our towns can prove that we can make it work. Connecticut can do better.

9 thoughts on “Op-Ed: Restoring Yankee Thrift

  1. A great deal of Connecticut’s financial problems are caused by the impact of low interest rates/inflation on the cost of the pensions that the state is obligated to pay. Most of these problems had nothing to do with Malloy. We have seen the prescription suggested here voiced by NJ Governor Chris Christie – and it has ruined NJ, not fixed it. I would like to see a Republican as governor but let’s hope it will be someone who is a thoughtful leader, hopeful, and not an alarmist trying to justify implementing a proven to be unworkable set of right-wing schemes.

    • Chris- Thank you for writing in.
      These are good sound bites, yes CT is in bad fiscal shape largely due to liabilities. However to blame this Governor who came in to legacies of deals and notably after the financial crisis or a Party is a petty, convenient and opportunistic manipulation of long-standing issues.
      I get it, you’re running for office. For those with short memories, the previous 20+ years including the boom when CT should have saved were presided over by three governors who were Republican; Jodi Rell, John Rowland (Resigned, Pleaded Guilty to corruption); and Lowell Weicker. None were savers.

      Rather than criticize with simplistic platitudes of “Thrift”, why don’t we have a discussion of who to deal with the legacies that we have inherited by poor policies that passed the buck forward. If you look at the companies leaving many are doing so to go back to the cities that they left in the 70’s and 80’s when crime was high. NYC and Boston are having Renaissances. The brain-drain from the suburbs of millennials who have no interest in 4 acre zoned castles to the cities means corps want to move to those locations (BTW, NYC and Boston have HIGHER taxes than those your are maligning in CT.)
      I’m not a fan of Malloy particularly, but if you look at the deal cut, and read an article or two about it, the deal normalized payments in exchange for a larger total payment. If you want to simplify it try a “Mortgage” vs. a single ballooning payment.
      Again, when you talk to thrift please be more specific: Many are open to trade-offs to cut our mill rate. But what do you stand behind cutting in town services? What do you suggest? Parks, Senior Services, Schools, DPW, First Responders, Capital Projects?

  2. I completely disagree with Chris DeMuth. Connecticut’s public unions are not over-compensated. Perhaps DeMuth does not know that CT is one of four states that does not pay into Social Security for its public employees, so in many cases their pensions are their sole retirement plan!!

  3. *87% of your pay– nice deal !! the problem is when a person
    makes $136,000 a yr – retires after 30 yrs then gets $117,000 for the rest of their life this is the problem — live for 30 yrs = $4,080,000
    someone is paying — Plus cost of living — whoever made this
    deal is insane !!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *