Governor Malloy Won't Push For Costly XL Center Upgrades

[HoopsFan21]

Maybe the tax situation would be better if we weren't subsidizing the poor states through federal taxes? I mean it's easy to sit here and say we should cut taxes and be more pro-business, but some of those pro-business states are raking in $2-3 in federal subsidies for every $1 they pay, while states like CT and NJ get about 70 cents on the dollar.

 

[upstater]

Maybe the tax situation would be better if we weren't subsidizing the poor states through federal taxes? I mean it's easy to sit here and say we should cut taxes and be more pro-business, but some of those pro-business states are raking in $2-3 in federal subsidies for every $1 they pay, while states like CT and NJ get about 70 cents on the dollar.

It's mostly a function of where people want to live.

 

[Exit 4]

Maybe the tax situation would be better if we weren't subsidizing the poor states through federal taxes? I mean it's easy to sit here and say we should cut taxes and be more pro-business, but some of those pro-business states are raking in $2-3 in federal subsidies for every $1 they pay, while states like CT and NJ get about 70 cents on the dollar.

Totally with you on that....too bad the left leaning atlantic says we are net takers....which is surprising and counter to other analytics I have seen. Texas a net giver...my how times have changed.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

 

[Padutch5]

Republicans good, Democrats bad. We get it. We heard you the first time.

You must be one of our politicians here in CT. Were you the one who dared GE to leave back when you approved the new state budget.

 

[HoopsFan21]

It's mostly a function of where people want to live.

It's not like Connecticut is losing people in droves:

2014: 3.597M
2013: 3.599M
2012: 3.594M
2011: 3.591M
2010: 3.577M
2009: 3.562M
2008: 3.546M
2000: 3.412M
1990: 3.292M
1980: 3.108M
1970: 3.032M

The trend is still a net influx of people albeit in the 10s of thousands over the past decade or so. It's true the population is not exploding, but it's one of the most densely populated states already, where would we put additional people, and how would the infrastructure handle it? Connecticut still offers nice quiet safe suburbs with access to the biggest cities in the country, full government services, decent mass transit options, beaches, a couple of little hills that qualify as bunny slopes for snow sports, some of the best public and private schools, and proximity to the top universities in the country. There's still a lot of good stuff here even if many people refuse to see it or take it for granted.

 

[Exit 4]

It's not like Connecticut is losing people in droves:

2014: 3.597M
2013: 3.599M
2012: 3.594M
2011: 3.591M
2010: 3.577M
2009: 3.562M
2008: 3.546M
2000: 3.412M
1990: 3.292M
1980: 3.108M
1970: 3.032M

The trend is still a net influx of people albeit in the 10s of thousands over the past decade or so. It's true the population is not exploding, but it's one of the most densely populated states already, where would we put additional people, and how would the infrastructure handle it? Connecticut still offers nice quiet safe suburbs with access to the biggest cities in the country, full government services, decent mass transit options, beaches, a couple of little hills that qualify as bunny slopes for snow sports, some of the best public and private schools, and proximity to the top universities in the country. There's still a lot of good stuff here even if many people refuse to see it or take it for granted.

States that aren't growing on par with the national average are losing in the economic development game. An expanding pie is essential for maintaining a healthy tax base. You don't want to be a bottom 5 state on population growth which is what we have been for the past 15 years as it suggests strongly that the local economy is not performing. The state's budget woes have everything to do with middle and high earners moving out faster than can be replaced (hence the monthly surprise that tax revenues are below the projection). We have room for more people, our cities could support more density. We need smarter policies including better efforts to get more for every tax dollar spent. In the link, note that after the national real estate market stabilized in 2011 the flight of high income people from CT to other states has accelerated vs the period prior to 2008. People with means see the writing on the wall with respect to the state's lack of will to deal with its long term issues - principally its unfunded pension bomb.

http://www.howmoneywalks.com/irs-tax-migration/ <--fixed link, based on real IRS tax data
http://www.theday.com/article/20140112/NWS12/140119903
https://ballotpedia.org/Public_pensions_in_Connecticut <--tons of CT pension deficit factoids in here.

 

[JSM1970]

Good post.

It will be interesting to see Malloy's budget on Weds. Does he really make long term, structural changes or just pass onto the local towns by just keeping the status quo and reducing aid to towns, which just makes it their problem, and the towns are mostly worse than the state for managing costs.

The local towns are a joke. Virtually every other state manages things like education at the county level, yet towns of 40k have to create whole staffs to do this, hugely costly, just to create more unnecessary Union jobs.

Whatever, not a forum for this, but could hurt UConn ultimately thru reduced investment/subsidies and higher tuitions.

States that aren't growing on par with the national average are losing in the economic development game. An expanding pie is essential for maintaining a healthy tax base. You don't want to be a bottom 5 state on population growth which is what we have been for the past 15 years as it suggests strongly that the local economy is not performing. The state's budget woes have everything to do with middle and high earners moving out faster than can be replaced (hence the monthly surprise that tax revenues are below the projection). We have room for more people, our cities could support more density. We need smarter policies including better efforts to get more for every tax dollar spent. In the link, note that after the national real estate market stabilized in 2011 the flight of high income people from CT to other states has accelerated vs the period prior to 2008. People with means see the writing on the wall with respect to the state's lack of will to deal with its long term issues - principally its unfunded pension bomb.

http://www.howmoneywalks.com/irs-tax-migration/ <--fixed link, based on real IRS tax data
http://www.theday.com/article/20140112/NWS12/140119903
https://ballotpedia.org/Public_pensions_in_Connecticut <--tons of CT pension deficit factoids in here.

 

[upstater]

It's not like Connecticut is losing people in droves:

2014: 3.597M
2013: 3.599M
2012: 3.594M
2011: 3.591M
2010: 3.577M
2009: 3.562M
2008: 3.546M
2000: 3.412M
1990: 3.292M
1980: 3.108M
1970: 3.032M

The trend is still a net influx of people albeit in the 10s of thousands over the past decade or so. It's true the population is not exploding, but it's one of the most densely populated states already, where would we put additional people, and how would the infrastructure handle it? Connecticut still offers nice quiet safe suburbs with access to the biggest cities in the country, full government services, decent mass transit options, beaches, a couple of little hills that qualify as bunny slopes for snow sports, some of the best public and private schools, and proximity to the top universities in the country. There's still a lot of good stuff here even if many people refuse to see it or take it for granted.

Most northeastern states pile their population into mid to large size cities. Philadelphia, New York, Boston, even Baltimore. Connecticut just doesn't have the kind of cities where people are densely packed into high rise apartment buildings, etc. Heck, it was even worse 25 years ago. Hardly anyone lived in downtown New Haven (and I don't mean the neighborhoods, I mean on streets around the Green.

 

[Exit 4]

Good post.

It will be interesting to see Malloy's budget on Weds. Does he really make long term, structural changes or just pass onto the local towns by just keeping the status quo and reducing aid to towns, which just makes it their problem, and the towns are mostly worse than the state for managing costs.

The local towns are a joke. Virtually every other state manages things like education at the county level, yet towns of 40k have to create whole staffs to do this, hugely costly, just to create more unnecessary Union jobs.

Whatever, not a forum for this, but could hurt UConn ultimately thru reduced investment/subsidies and higher tuitions.

Thanks. Very hard to push this state to develop regional government for many tasks. The hard sell has to come from the governor. The governor has to detail the mechanics and benefits (savings!). If Malloy had a time machine, he might have made that his cause when he first arrived. Now, I think he's just going to limp to the end and look for the next gov to address. Everything I hear is that he is not running again. So, as for the budget - yeah seems like reduced town funding is what is on the docket, especially if he won't challenge labor or increase taxes.

 

[JSM1970]

Good points. He could also make his case to gradually reduce municipal aid as a way of saying, consolidate some services and reduce redundant costs.

Require towns to submit plans and scale back aid based on how aggressive towns are, meaning require towns to reduce debt, taxes as a way to lower costs and those that don't get less investment and drive expenses to citizens.

Such a broken state.

Thanks. Very hard to push this state to develop regional government for many tasks. The hard sell has to come from the governor. The governor has to detail the mechanics and benefits (savings!). If Malloy had a time machine, he might have made that his cause when he first arrived. Now, I think he's just going to limp to the end and look for the next gov to address. Everything I hear is that he is not running again. So, as for the budget - yeah seems like reduced town funding is what is on the docket, especially if he won't challenge labor or increase taxes.

 

[LoyalFanCT]

Know it would have its drawbacks, but has anyone ever considered putting a giant arena at one of the casinos. Perhaps, the cost could be shared between the state and the casino. The casino could use the facility for concerts, conventions etc. UConn would only need it a few times a week for basketball and hockey.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

State's lack of will to deal with its long term issues - principally its unfunded pension bomb.

https://ballotpedia.org/Public_pensions_in_Connecticut <--tons of CT pension deficit factoids in here.

Ha, ha, you think CT has a public pension issue, try New Jersey.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_pension_system_most_underfunded_of_all_50_state.html

 

[Exit 4]

Ha, ha, you think CT has a public pension issue, try New Jersey.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_pension_system_most_underfunded_of_all_50_state.html

CT's situation is urgent and headed towards dire. Pointing out someone else's boat is sinking does not help our boat to float. Its a bit of a tedious exercise to gather this data and properly crunch the numbers, so we will see stories with various numbers and rankings. However none of them change the core issue which is CT is way behind the eight ball and our lack of will to deal with it shaking the confidence of decision makers (GE, hedge fund managers) who are relocating out of state and taking their employees who pay elevated income taxes (high bracket households) with them. The story down here in lower FF is all about companies making the slow move out of state. The only reason apartment rentals are doing well is because people commute to NYC and/telecommute to NYC.

The key measurement is per capita obligation and any story based on per capita obligation has CT in the top 5 of under funded, often top 2.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nding-levels-in-u-s-improve-for-a-second-year <--CT is bottom of this story.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/connecticut-americas-richest-state-has-a-huge-pension-problem-1443996813
<--CT is a bottom three state here too.

We need hard solutions or we are headed the way of Puerto Rico and Detroit. You can't scare away your tax base.

 

[businesslawyer]

States that aren't growing on par with the national average are losing in the economic development game. An expanding pie is essential for maintaining a healthy tax base. You don't want to be a bottom 5 state on population growth which is what we have been for the past 15 years as it suggests strongly that the local economy is not performing. The state's budget woes have everything to do with middle and high earners moving out faster than can be replaced (hence the monthly surprise that tax revenues are below the projection). We have room for more people, our cities could support more density. We need smarter policies including better efforts to get more for every tax dollar spent. In the link, note that after the national real estate market stabilized in 2011 the flight of high income people from CT to other states has accelerated vs the period prior to 2008. People with means see the writing on the wall with respect to the state's lack of will to deal with its long term issues - principally its unfunded pension bomb.

http://www.howmoneywalks.com/irs-tax-migration/ <--fixed link, based on real IRS tax data
http://www.theday.com/article/20140112/NWS12/140119903
https://ballotpedia.org/Public_pensions_in_Connecticut <--tons of CT pension deficit factoids in here.

Of course we want to be towards the bottom in growth. We're dense. Why in the world would you want CT to grow at the rate of Arizona or Colorado?

 

[Exit 4]

Of course we want to be towards the bottom in growth. We're dense. Why in the world would you want CT to grow at the rate of Arizona or Colorado?

You need growth on par or just below par with the national average. Long periods of slow to no growth is a sign of economic stagnation and a sign people and companies are voting with their feet and finding better opportunities elsewhere. When you are not growing, you are shrinking and shrinking tax bases don't support pensions, public debt service and government programs very well as we are seeing with our state budget woes and 'deficit surprises'. Don't need to grow like AZ, but should grow like MA, MD, VA and even DE.

 

[pj]

Of course we want to be towards the bottom in growth. We're dense. Why in the world would you want CT to grow at the rate of Arizona or Colorado?

If you don't want growth in numbers of people, you should still care about what kind of people you have. Losing high income earners and gaining welfare recipients would make the state's environment less desirable for those who remain.

As for density, well, Connecticut is less dense than Rhode Island or Massachusetts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density). It could grow in population density a bit and still be a very nice place to live. I like Massachusetts better than Connecticut, it's not bad having a densely populated city around as long as you can escape it, which you can in Boston.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Connecticut's simple problem with taxes is that the state sends a ton more to the federal government than it gets back. Southern states get massive subsidies from the federal government that they use to hand out as tax breaks to lure businesses from wealthy northern states. Until Connecticut solves that problem, we will be at a competitive disadvantage to virtually every other state in the country.

Ironically, many of the same idiots in this thread blasting Malloy for not giving more handouts are the same ones that denounce welfare. Republicans are consistently hypocritical, if nothing else.

 

[IMind]

I love the publications cited too: WSJ, Bloomberg, and the NY Sun... real diverse thinking there. How many more pages before someone mentions the gold standard?

 

[JSM1970]

The state sends no money, the citizens do. It's not CT's money.

What are you talking about? That has zero to do with the bloated and inefficient state and local workers, with rich benefits.

Connecticut's simple problem with taxes is that the state sends a ton more to the federal government than it gets back. Southern states get massive subsidies from the federal government that they use to hand out as tax breaks to lure businesses from wealthy northern states. Until Connecticut solves that problem, we will be at a competitive disadvantage to virtually every other state in the country.

Ironically, many of the same idiots in this thread blasting Malloy for not giving more handouts are the same ones that denounce welfare. Republicans are consistently hypocritical, if nothing else.

 

[JSM1970]

Also, Southern subsidies? What do you call the worthless busline? Who got stuck funding that waste?

 

[Exit 4]

Connecticut's simple problem with taxes is that the state sends a ton more to the federal government than it gets back. Southern states get massive subsidies from the federal government that they use to hand out as tax breaks to lure businesses from wealthy northern states. Until Connecticut solves that problem, we will be at a competitive disadvantage to virtually every other state in the country.

Ironically, many of the same idiots in this thread blasting Malloy for not giving more handouts are the same ones that denounce welfare. Republicans are consistently hypocritical, if nothing else.

You obviously didn't check this link which has more recent data. CT has historically been a large net loser on federal tax contributions, per data sets from the 2000s, however the latest data shows more balance.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

Anyway, the bottomline is either our two senators should spend less time worrying about product recalls and photo ops for green energy and more time returning our federal tax dollars to help us refloat the ship. And we need to spend those dollars wisely with maximum value.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Do people really think that GE left CT for the tax-free haven that is Boston, MA?

 

[Exit 4]

I love the publications cited too: WSJ, Bloomberg, and the NY Sun... real diverse thinking there. How many more pages before someone mentions the gold standard?

Bloomberg is center left, The Atlantic Monthly is way left. None of your commentary addresses the issues. The head in the sand approach over the past 15 years has brought us to this point of reckoning (chronic budget deficits, home values still below peak, post recession employment recovery near dead last in the nation). Ideas welcome - from all parties.

 

[Exit 4]

Do people really think that GE left CT for the tax-free haven that is Boston, MA?

They left because the state hasn't properly dealt with its structural budget deficit. It was as much about the potential for much more taxes tomorrow than about taxes today. We have a state budget much closer to Puerto Rico and Detroit than MA. GE made this abundantly clear in an unprecedented manner for a public company.

 

[JSM1970]

A couple things

1) across the board reductions in state workers by 10% (to start)
2) reduction in retiree pensions by 10%
3) consolidation of redundant local services at the regional and county levels, drive substantial economies of scale
4) substantial business credits and incentives to attract companies, like MA did to GE
5) scale back some of the transpiration and make better investments. Letting state workers do any of the work is a waste, drags on, costly, disruption to local communities

Just a few quick ideas. Would save billions of more. I would honestly go deeper on #1-2

Bloomberg is center left, The Atlantic Monthly is way left. None of your commentary addresses the issues. The head in the sand approach over the past 15 years has brought us to this point of reckoning (chronic budget deficits, home values still below peak, post recession employment recovery near dead last in the nation). Ideas welcome - from all parties.

 

[IMind]

Bloomberg is center left, The Atlantic Monthly is way left. None of your commentary addresses the issues. The head in the sand approach over the past 15 years has brought us to this point of reckoning (chronic budget deficits, home values still below peak, post recession employment recovery near dead last in the nation). Ideas welcome - from all parties.

Oh wont someone please think of the Children!

Listen you two can go back to the cesspool.. seriously... we're not that interested... you're probably not really interested in my solution to the problem either.

 

[mavblues]

Do people really think that GE left CT for the tax-free haven that is Boston, MA?

You mean like the Patriots did?

 

[Drew]

You mean like the Patriots did?

Well played

 

[JSM1970]

Patriots were never there, they didn't have 800 employees who owned houses, paid local and state sales, etc.

Well played

 

[Exit 4]

You mean like the Patriots did?

If you watch how corporations jostle for benefit packages, the quotes put out by GE management were unprecedented. They made statements expressing concern about state policies on a broad scale and the state's financial health. Very unusual and really just unheard of.