When Does a Budget Shortfall Become A Crisis? In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants Will Cost Us

When Does a Budget Shortfall Become A Crisis? In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants Will Cost Us By State Representative Vincent Candelora

As we begin to prepare for a new legislative session in January, the deadline for submitting new legislation quickly approaches.  This past week, members of the Appropriation and Finance Committees received updates on the financial condition of Connecticut.  Not much has changed from projections over the past two years.  We are still facing annual deficits in FY 2011 and 2012 of roughly $3.5 billion in each year.  While Connecticut’s unemployment remains at 9.1 percent, private sector jobs are not projected to return until 2013.  It is clear that Connecticut is in a long term crisis which requires serious attention.  Aside from needing to reduce government and eliminate redundant programs, we must look toward legislative reforms that will prevent Connecticut from relying upon bad budgeting practices.  I am supportive of Governor-Elect Malloy’s proposal to move Connecticut to GAAP accounting.  The significance of this proposal requires Connecticut to account for its unfunded liabilities.  Our current practice only accounts for liabilities that require payment in the current fiscal year.  In other words, no long term liabilities, such as pension obligations or long-term debt service, are accounted in the budget.  Connecticut has a “pay as you go” method of budgeting.  GAAP accounting would create the transparency in budgeting that would benefit anyone. My optimism of this proposal, however, dissipated with Governor-Elect Malloy’s support for providing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.  This proposal not only serves as a major distraction from our budgeting needs, but it is based on bad public policy and is a gross abuse of taxpayer dollars.  In the 2007 Legislative Session, the General Assembly debated the merits of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and approved the measure with all Republicans and some Democrats opposing it.  Governor Rell vetoed the bill, in part due to the cost to taxpayers.  If this measure is debated again this session, I believe it is imperative that Connecticut understand its cost and consequences to the taxpayers.  As we face a $7 billion dollar deficit in the next biennium, we should be concerned with getting our own fiscal house in order. Regardless of how one feels about the issue of illegal immigrants, this bill has fatal flaws from inception.  If Connecticut chooses to give in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants, under federal law, the state is exposed to being required to give all non-residents in-state tuition rates.  Connecticut taxpayers invest dearly in our educational system by being one of the highest per capita taxpayers in the country.  This law not only proposes to give tax subsidies to individuals who do not pay taxes, but exposes Connecticut to higher education costs by reducing tuition rates for anyone that chooses to go to a Connecticut school.  The bill will cost us millions in lost tuition revenue. Previous versions of this bill require that these illegal immigrants make a good faith effort to become legal United States citizens.  By requiring this, proponents argued that the state would be investing in a future workforce for Connecticut employers.  This argument, however, fails to recognize that any person in the United States illegally is foreclosed from applying for citizenship under federal law.  If these individuals cannot gain citizenship, they cannot seek gainful, legal employment within the United States, let alone Connecticut. In January when the General Assembly is sworn into office, we take an oath to uphold the laws of the State of Connecticut and the United States.  Offering in-state tuition to illegal immigrants flies in the face of federal law and demonstrates a willingness to recklessly gamble our tax dollars.  These bills that encourage illegal immigration to Connecticut is stripping us of our financial check valve, opening up the faucet, and filling the catch basin with more uncontrolled expenses and liabilities.  At what point does a budget crisis become so severe that we, as lawmakers, stop spending your tax dollars on social experiments and begin to tackle the budget crisis?  These types of proposals merely serve to take our eye off the ball and fail to address the real problems.  Lawmakers have a moral obligation to provide a balanced budget without gimmicks and I hope the new administration reconsiders this proposal.