|
Connecticut’s Battle of the Budgets April 10, 2008 Over the next few months, two great armies will fight hundreds of bitter -- although not bloody -- skirmishes throughout Connecticut. On paper, at least, it’s not a fair fight. One side has millions of dollars in its coffers, big lobbying muscle, and a sophisticated propaganda machine. The other side is scrappy, but woefully underfunded, and must do battle with both its enemy and voter apathy. If the trend continues, however, it’s taxpayer groups that will get the better of local politicians, municipal-employee unions and government-school enthusiasts. There’s a simple reason why more and more Nutmeggers are voting down their towns’ budget requests: Connecticut’s property-tax burden is out of control. Since 1991, when a broad-based income tax was adopted -- in part due to hysterical claims about impending rollbacks in state subsidies to municipalities -- the revenue extracted by Connecticut’s property tax has risen by an inflation-adjusted 30 percent. That’s a rate almost five times population growth. Taxpayers might accept such an increased burden, if most lived in households with rising incomes. Most don’t. Median household income -- half earn more, half earn less -- has fallen in Connecticut since adoption of the income tax. There’s another factor at play in this struggle: the state’s monstrously high (and rising) cost of living. The price of gasoline leaps to mind, but the U.S. Department of Energy reports that Connecticut also has the sixth most expensive natural gas and second most expensive electricity in the nation. The cost of health-insurance premiums are higher in Connecticut than in 47 other states, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The MetLife Mature Market Institute says that nursing-home costs in Connecticut are among the highest in the nation. (In the Hartford area, the cost of a private room is 62 percent higher than the national average. In the Stamford area, the cost is 67 percent higher.) Insurance Information Institute data show that auto-insurance rates in Connecticut are the eighth highest in the nation. None of this is good news for local politicians and municipal bureaucrats. Their specious pleas of cutting “to the bone,” trimming “the fat,” and the need for voters to acquiesce to higher taxes “for the children” are falling on deaf ears. According to the governor’s budget office, “2007 continued a seven year trend that has seen municipalities experience much difficulty adopting budgets, especially in adopting budgets by July 1. In every year since 2001, there have been between 11-24 municipalities that have adopted their budgets after July 1. Twenty-four municipalities needed three or more votes to adopt their budgets, two more than in 2006.” It’s now clear that “greedy geezers” alone aren’t defeating these budgets. Boomers and Xers are contributing. Homeschooling and private-school parents see no reason to pay twice for education. And yes, even parents with children in government schools are starting to have second thoughts. Last year Scott Larsen, father of two children in the Newtown School District, offered an explanation for voting “no” that should terrify Connecticut’s money-hungry education establishment: “I think the budget is bloated and needs to be re-addressed.” Early results suggest that taxpayer anger remains intense in 2008. Monroe, a town of about 20,000 in northeast Fairfield County, hasn’t passed a budget on the first try since 1994. (Last year it took six votes.) On April 1, over 60 percent of voters shot down a proposed tax hike of 5.3 percent. Just two weeks before the vote, Monrovians obliterated a proposal to do away with the provision of the town’s charter that requires automatic budget referendum. With the grassroots group “Friends of Democracy” leading the way, voters chose to retain their ability to vote on the budget by a 4-to-1 margin. East Granby also offered a glimpse into prevailing fiscal attitudes last month. Voters crushed a $23 million proposal to turn one of the town’s schools into a senior center/municipal office and consolidate and renovate its other school. “Concerned Taxpayers of East Granby” carried the flag this time, and voters defeated the measure by 40 percentage points. Even local-government politicians, whose standard tactic is to blame all proposed budget increases on the state’s “unfunded mandates” and beg voters to accept higher taxes, are growing backbones. Earlier this month, selectman William Brown demanded that Stonington’s board of finance reduce its 5.1 percent tax hike. “If they don’t make any changes … then I’ll be vocal about rejecting the budget,” he said. “We just can’t afford this increase.” Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy referendum season. D. Dowd Muska is a writer, commentator and public-policy researcher. He can be reached at muskacolumn@cox.net. # # # # # |
