May 16, 2016

Letter to Editor re: Budget Update

This article was archived from the previous WordPress site. Formatting and media should be close, but may not match the original post perfectly.

To the Editor,

Roughly three hours later than scheduled to begin, the House of Representatives finally started business at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, May 13th. The budget adjustment package presented to me and my Republican colleagues was based on $861 million in nearsighted cuts, mostly to municipal aid, and a projected $136 million mirage of new revenue. My hopes of working with the Majority Party to implement long-term changes that would mitigate Connecticut’s $930 million deficit through 2017 quickly faded.

Cutting funds, which had already been promised to our cities and towns when the biennium budget passed in June of 2015, unduly places excessive financial burden on them. Allocations to transportation aid, education cost sharing, and many PILOT programs have simply evaporated. What is especially concerning is at this point in the fiscal year it is ambiguous how municipalities will make up the difference from absent state dollars.

During the debate, I advocated for the funding and continuation of the delivery of services administered through the DSS Torrington office. It is imperative that residents of the Northwest corner have access to such services, especially when the closest hub outside of Torrington would be Waterbury.

Further, I spoke in favor of the full restoration of transportation funding. Again, the legislature should do its best to alleviate unfunded mandates and by maintaining transportation funding, municipalities would have greater financial flexibility.

In an attempt to bring common sense solutions, House Republicans offered several amendments that would have implemented long-term structural changes and would have held our municipalities harmless:

Amendment A: Would have required the adoption of a state spending cap, require all union contracts to be approved by the legislature, and also require all new state employees be enrolled in a defined contribution plan
Amendment B: Would have reduced funding for the Citizens’ Election Program by $3.4 million in order to restore funding to:
o Child Abuse and Neglect Intervention
o Differential Response System
o Domestic Violence Shelters
o Family Violence Outreach and Counseling
o Grants for Psychiatric Clinics for Children
o Rape Crisis
Amendment C: Would have cut the Board of Regents by Half and eliminated common core funding in order to restore municipal aid
Amendment D: Would have eliminated the Citizens’ Election Program entirely

All amendments were denied by the Majority Party, for reasons that remain unclear to me.

By stating there are no tax increases within the budget adjustments, pushed forth by legislative Democrats, shows the package was simply a political ploy to maintain the majority after the November election. Shifting financial burden onto our cities and towns is, in itself, a massive tax increase. In that light, I remain confident that taxpayers remember the policies that have been borne from the majority’s reign.

Sincerely,

Jay Case
State Representative, 63rd District

###