CT gov Malloy at convention

[Jim in CT]

Let's talk about the state of Connecticut...

- some of the highest tax rates in the nation
- applied to some of the highest incomes in the nation

When you apply high tax rates to high incomes, that means you have an awful lot of tax revenue.

Add to that, hundreds of mikllions of dollars from the casinos.

Conclusion...the state has no shortage of cash. we gave them a ton of cash.

Somehow, the state of CT still has the highest debt-per-citizen in the nation...our debt is 35% HIGHER than the 49th-worst state. All that revenue, and they still overspent by 35% more than any other state.

Barron's recently graded CT state bonds as the most likely state bonds to default.

CT has a shrinking population.

CT has an astronomical cost of living.

CT has large cities that are abject failures.

CT recently broke ground on a nine mile busway to Hartford. The cost of paving 9 miles of road? $550 million.

Why does any of this matter? Because our governor is speaking at the democratic National Convention.

Is he there to pass the hat on our behalf?

[zimmy]

First, why don't you look at state and local debt as a percent of gdp. It is much more telling than per person. Comparing debt per person ignores way too many factors and makes comparisons between states pretty much pointless.
Compare Revenue By State for 2012 - Charts

Also, CT's decades of Republican governors and democratic congress have more to do with CT's debt than a governor who was inaugurated in 2011. And I don't even like the guy, but come on.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

First, why don't you look at state and local debt as a percent of gdp. It is much more telling than per person. Comparing debt per person ignores way too many factors and makes comparisons between states pretty much pointless.
Compare Revenue By State for 2012 - Charts

Also, CT's decades of Republican governors and democratic congress have more to do with CT's debt than a governor who was inaugurated in 2011. And I don't even like the guy, but come on.

"It is much more telling than per person"

Debt per person tells me how much more I owe. I can't control any of the state GDP other than myself.

"makes comparisons between states pretty much pointless"

I'm a statistician. I don't believe looking at it per person is pointless. I'm not saying it's the only way of looking at it, but it's certainly not pointless.

"Also, CT's decades of Republican governors"

Ah, yes, the song of the truly desperate...

Yes, CT has had governors from the Republican party. But none were conservatives. There is exactly zero evidence of any conservative idealism that exists in the CT political landscape.

Zimmy, what is truly "pointless" is saying that the existence of a Republican governor means that CT is not a perfectly liberal state. A liberal can be a Republican.

CT is a petri dish through which we can view the results of a generation of pure, unchecked, liberalism. The conservatives in CT have not enacted a single conservative ideal, particularly in the area of economics.

Zimmy, enlighten me...if CT had never had a republican governor, exactly what would be different in this state?

"a governor who was inaugurated in 2011..."

And what did he do? He implemented the single largest tax increase in the history of our state, and worse, he made it retroactive to 6 months earlier than implemented (meaning, we had to pay double the increase for the second half of 2011). Malloy also personally approved of the idiotic, unexcusable, $550 million busway.

[zimmy]

Not interested in going through the details of the argument beyond the fact that it is hard to place the blame for CT's debt on him. The per person argument doesn't work because it ignores way too much. In theory, if there were a state with one person, a bunch of oil, and a debt of $1million, it would be a bebt of 1 million per person and it could be paid in about 2 seconds by the industry.

I also think the busway is going to be a waste of money.

[PaulS]

Take a look at NJ and the prob. they have there - same type of prob. and the Repub. had Christie as a speaker (who didn't evn mention Romney's name for what 18 mins.)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Take a look at NJ and the prob. they have there - same type of prob. and the Repub. had Christie as a speaker (who didn't evn mention Romney's name for what 18 mins.)

Yes, NJ has similar problems. And like CT, the cause of those problems is decades of liberalism, giving blank checks to unions, spending like crazy, and taxing citizens into oblivion. Paul, the fact that Chris Christie is a Republican who lives in NJ, does not mean that NJ is not a liberal state. Zimmy tried the same argument, saying that I can't claim CT is a liberal place because we have had republican governors. It's not a valid argument. A state is defined as liberal or conservative, based on the policies that are in place. CT and NJ are 2 states that have embraced liberalism. And like all liberal states, those 2 states are on the verge of bankruptcy.

CT and NJ are 2 places that have ben liberal for a generation. The economic consequences speak for themselves. NJ, unlike CT, decided that bankruptcy didn't sound liek a good idea, so they elected Gov Christie. Here in CT, where viters feel like we can dig our way out of a hole, we elected more liberals, who decided that the soultion was to raise taxes and spend more.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

First, why don't you look at state and local debt as a percent of gdp. It is much more telling than per person. Comparing debt per person ignores way too many factors and makes comparisons between states pretty much pointless.
Compare Revenue By State for 2012 - Charts

Also, CT's decades of Republican governors and democratic congress have more to do with CT's debt than a governor who was inaugurated in 2011. And I don't even like the guy, but come on.

Zimmy, of course $1 million in debt means different things to a lemonade stand than it means to Microsoft...

Barron's recently ranked all states on their likelihood of defaulting on bonds. The state of CT had the highest likelihod of default. That tells me that Barron's isn't impressed by the ratio of debt to GDP.

State of the States - Barrons.com

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

First, why don't you look at state and local debt as a percent of gdp. It is much more telling than per person. Comparing debt per person ignores way too many factors and makes comparisons between states pretty much pointless.
Compare Revenue By State for 2012 - Charts

Also, CT's decades of Republican governors and democratic congress have more to do with CT's debt than a governor who was inaugurated in 2011. And I don't even like the guy, but come on.

Zimmy, I could not connect to your link. So here is one of my own that looks at debt to GDP by state.

State of the States - Barrons.com

CT has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 7.9%, which looks like it's 3rd highest in the nation. So even in this measure, CT has a terrible ranking, like it does for every conceivable financial metric.

You are correct that Gov Maloy didn't create the debt. But are you going to tell me the debt would be a lot lower if he had been governor for the last 20 years? The man is a textbook tax-and-spend democrat. As soon as he got in office, he enacted the largest tax hike in state history.

So while he wasn't in office when this mess was created, he is clearly doubling down on the exact policies that created the mess.

[PaulS]

Jim, take a look at Rowland's policies with union contracts. You'd be suprised.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, take a look at Rowland's policies with union contracts. You'd be suprised.

Can you give me the Cliffs Notes version?

[PaulS]

From a quick search

Union negotiations under way | Yale Daily News



In 1997, former Gov. John Rowland negotiated a 20-year contract with state employee unions. The provisions governing health benefits and pensions will remain in effect until 2017, forcing Malloy to look to other savings, such as wage freezes and retirement age adjustments, to find the money he is requesting

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

From a quick search

Union negotiations under way | Yale Daily News



In 1997, former Gov. John Rowland negotiated a 20-year contract with state employee unions. The provisions governing health benefits and pensions will remain in effect until 2017, forcing Malloy to look to other savings, such as wage freezes and retirement age adjustments, to find the money he is requesting

Fair enough. So there's John Rowland, who calls himself a Republican, embracing the liberal tactic of giving in to labor unions.

I don't expect Malloy to break contracts, either. But when you lead a state that's bankrupt, and you conclude it's sound economic policy to spend $550 milion to pave 9 miles of road and buy a few buses, then you are an idiot. I just can't see any other possibility.

[zimmy]

The link that didn't work for Jim shows that CT does rank about 5th in state debt as percent of gdp, but about 20th when calculated as state and local debt as percent of gdp, behind Kentucky, Alaska, Texas etc. Not that any of it really has much of a connection to Malloy, at this point.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Not that any of it really has much of a connection to Malloy, at this point.

I respectfully disagree. Of course, I concede that Malloy wasn't governor before 2011. But ideologically speaking, he's perfectly in sync with all the liberal economic policies that define CT...high taxes, huge government, pouring money into cities, giving unions a blank check, etc...

What I mean is this...if Malloy had been governor for the last 40 years, there's no reason to believe anything would be any different. He's a pure liberal, that's precisely how he governed as mayor of Stamford.

As governor, all Malloy is proposing, and all he has actually implemented, is "more of the same".

Malloy in CT, Christie in NJ, Walker in WI, Kasich in OH, all got elected in 2010 facing horrible economic situations. The other 3 governors made sweeping changes, and results are starting to improve (maybe there's causality there, maybe not). Here in CT, Malloy increased taxes and spending. And all we get is a report saying our economy is worse than previously thought.

There isn't a liberal state in this nation with a thriving economy. Many liberal states realized this in 2010, and turned teh rudder to the right. Here in CT, we kept the car aiming straight for the cliff, and Malloy is accelerating the pace, that's all he is doing.

Here's what just baffles me...exactly how many times does liberal economics need to fail, before liberals concede that there might be a flaw in the logic?

For example...the private sector did away with pensions 20 years ago, because they were simply too expensive. Yet Democrats won't give up that perk for labor unions, and guess what? Those labor perks are doing to local governments exactly what you'd expect, they are putting unreasonable demands on local resources. Conclusion...if pensions are too expensive for the private sector, they are similarly too expensive for the public servents that are compensated using taxes paid by those in the private sector. That's as simple as it gets, it doesn't get any simpler than that. Yet liberals won't cocede that point, they just won't. Somehow, the notion that you cannot spend more than you have, is controversial. I don't get why, I just don't.

This is not hypothetical theory anymore, there's actual data to back it up...by just about any conceivable measure, red states (as a group) are financially better off than blue states. I don't know why liberals bend over backwards to deny that.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This is not hypothetical theory anymore, there's actual data to back it up...by just about any conceivable measure, red states (as a group) are financially better off than blue states. I don't know why liberals bend over backwards to deny that.

Maybe because they get substantially more federal money than they pay in taxes Your take on Malloy is that he acts like a democrat, so the democrats shouldn't have used him at there convention? Ok, point taken.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Maybe because they get substantially more federal money than they pay in taxes Your take on Malloy is that he acts like a democrat, so the democrats shouldn't have used him at there convention? Ok, point taken.

My take on Malloy is that, like Obama, he inherited a lousy situation, and chose to double down on rhe policies that created the lousy situation. In the real world, an executive gets fired for that kind of stupidity. In the democratic party, one gets honored.

At the republican convention, we saw speakers (Walker in WI, Kasich in OH, Christie in NJ) who had the common sense to say "we're in horrible shape. We're not going to continue the policies that put us in this position. we're going to make the tough sacrifices to turn this thing around".

Zimmy...exactly how many times do we need to see liberal economic policies fail, before you people admit that you need to go back to the drawing board? How many times?

Zimmy, please show me the data to convince me that the difference between what CT residents pay in federal income taxes, and what we get back from the feds, is not meaningless in terms of our debt.

Our problems in CT are not due to a lack of revenue. we spent like lunatics. I'm sorry if you don't like that reality. But it's reality.

[zimmy]

There is no validity in the point that red states are better off financially than the blue states without mention of the differences in taxes. It may not be responsible for CT's debt, but it effects budgets at the local and state level. You don't need me to give you data, it is simple arithmetic. Property taxes, state income taxes, business taxes are all lower in those red states than they would be if those federal outlays were different. See what BIll Crist thinks about how the Romney/Ryan plan will affect the states. You argue constantly about how tax policies affect competitiveness, but now say that it is irrelevant in comparing states who gain money from tax policies to those who lose money from the same policies? Really? The lowest debt per gdp is wyoming. From the 2007 numbers, they paid 4.7 billion in fed taxes and received 5.2 billion, positive $0.5 billion. Ct paid $54 billion and got back 37 billion for A LOSS of $17 billion. You really think that gaining 1/2 a billion for state coffers per year versus losing $17 billion from state coffers per year doesn't effect debt, tax rates, etc?

[zimmy]

By the way, if CT had the ~$17 billion annually since say 2006, you are talking $112 billion over that time period that could have been used to pay down the state debt of ~$99 billion. Does that make a difference? How would Wyoming look if it was in the same return situation as CT and had to deal with $3 billion a year less? I wager it might affect its debt outlook.

"Connecticut has a total state debt of approximately $98,611,650, when calculated by adding the total of outstanding official debt, pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) liabilities, Unemployment Trust Fund loans, and FY2013 budget gap.[5] The debt is slightly down from the prior year's total of $99,751,294,000.[6]"

Read more: Connecticut state budget - Sunshine Review

You might also notice that debt is a bit lower since Malloy took over, just to be fair about it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

There is no validity in the point that red states are better off financially than the blue states without mention of the differences in taxes. It may not be responsible for CT's debt, but it effects budgets at the local and state level. You don't need me to give you data, it is simple arithmetic. Property taxes, state income taxes, business taxes are all lower in those red states than they would be if those federal outlays were different. See what BIll Crist thinks about how the Romney/Ryan plan will affect the states. You argue constantly about how tax policies affect competitiveness, but now say that it is irrelevant in comparing states who gain money from tax policies to those who lose money from the same policies? Really? The lowest debt per gdp is wyoming. From the 2007 numbers, they paid 4.7 billion in fed taxes and received 5.2 billion, positive $0.5 billion. Ct paid $54 billion and got back 37 billion for A LOSS of $17 billion. You really think that gaining 1/2 a billion for state coffers per year versus losing $17 billion from state coffers per year doesn't effect debt, tax rates, etc?

Zimmy, I never denied that CT operates with a net loss of federal income tax dollars. That needs to be taken into account. But you are concluding that that translates into a dollar-for dollar adjustment to the state debt. That's statistically wrong for at least 3 reasons.

(1) You assume that, if we had those federal tax dollars back, our debt would be lower. Politics doesn't work that way. Liberal politics especialy doesn't wok that way. I remember when they rammed the state income tax down our throats, they said it would ensure our financial health. Well, with all that additional revenue, we have more debt now than we did then. Why? Because when liberal politicians see revenue, they cannot spend it fast enough. Spend, spend, spend.

(2) You say that CT has an average net loss of $17B. If that's correct, not all of that is money lost to other states, here's why...every state has to contribute something to the activities that take place in Washington DC, as well as what takes place overseas, especially when we are at war. So it's not mathematically possible that the "average" state breaks even with federal tax cash flow.

(3) If CT operates in a net loss of federal income tax dollars, much of that net loss is offset by how much higher state/local taxes are in CT compared to WY.

Tax rates: Where does your state rank? - Apr. 14, 2009

According to this chart, the average CT citizen pays $7,000 in state/local taxes. The average WY resident pays $3700. So the average CT citizen pays $3300 more. There are 3.4 million CT residents. So the state of CT collects $11.2 billion more in state/local tax revenue, than we would collect if we had WY's tax rates. That annual increase of $11.3 billion offsets most of the federal income tax loss.

Yes, our taxes need to be a bit higher because we send money to other states. But that doesn't explain much of the discrepancy in financial health between red states and blue states. Not even liberal politicians are blaming the problem on the federal tax shift. I have never heard a single CT politician claim that our debt is largely driven by a shift in federal income tax dollars out of state. It's certainly not something that is commonly accepted, even in liberal circles.

It's policies Zimmy, not federal tax dollars. In WY, I can guarantee you that public servents don't get the insane compensation that they get here in CT. WY doesn't attract those who won't work, WY doesn't drive away those who want to work.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

According to this chart, the average CT citizen pays $7,000 in state/local taxes. The average WY resident pays $3700. So the average CT citizen pays $3300 more. There are 3.4 million CT residents. So the state of CT collects $11.2 billion more in state/local tax revenue, than we would collect if we had WY's tax rates. That annual increase of $11.3 billion offsets most of the federal income tax loss.

.

You point out that our higher taxes don't even cover the federal income tax loss. That makes it even clearer that it is hard for CT to compete with Wyoming on that front alone, because even with our taxes twice as high, it still doesn't make up what is lost in federal dollars. So can we now agree that there are too many variables to say the red states do a better job with debt and being tax competetive? By the way, CT is 8th lowest in spending vs gdp. So you can say that the dem's in CT have spent to death, but relative to gdp, it is one of the best. You can say taxes are through the roof, but they are higher to make up for the losses in federal money, which disproportionately go to red states. You started this thread, not me.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You point out that our higher taxes don't even cover the federal income tax loss. That makes it even clearer that it is hard for CT to compete with Wyoming on that front alone, because even with our taxes twice as high, it still doesn't make up what is lost in federal dollars. So can we now agree that there are too many variables to say the red states do a better job with debt and being tax competetive? By the way, CT is 8th lowest in spending vs gdp. So you can say that the dem's in CT have spent to death, but relative to gdp, it is one of the best. You can say taxes are through the roof, but they are higher to make up for the losses in federal money, which disproportionately go to red states. You started this thread, not me.

"it is hard for CT to compete with Wyoming on that front alone, because even with our taxes twice as high, it still doesn't make up what is lost in federal dollars."

It makes up a LOT of the difference. And as I said, I expect CT tyo get less back than we oay in federal taxes, because much of that goes to places outside of CT, like Washington DC and overseas.

"So can we now agree that there are too many variables to say the red states do a better job with debt and being tax competetive?"

No, I cannot agree to that. Not even Gov Malloy is blaming our debt on the federal tax shift. I've never heard governors of states with big debt claim that is a significant driver of the debt. Forgive me, but the only people I hear making that claim are liberal apologists...

"By the way, CT is 8th lowest in spending vs gdp."

Not according to the Barrons data I posted. Look at the chart in this article...

State of the States - Barrons.com

CT has the 3rd highest debt-to-GDP, just barely behind Mass and Hawaii. And if you include unfunded pensions with traditional debt and look at THAT as a % of GDSP (Also in this chart), CT has the very highest ratio in the nation, and by a huge margin. In the ranking, that % usually only increases by a tenth of a point or two, between states. But when yuo go from the 2nd worst state (IL) to CT, the difference is 0.8 points.

"you can say that the dem's in CT have spent to death, but relative to gdp, it is one of the best"

Not according to this data, and not when you include the benefits given to union workers, which obviously cannot be ignored, right?

"You started this thread"

Yes, I did. And my point (that CT has dismal financial ratings, despite astronomical taxes) still stands.

Zimmy, why isn't Gov Malloy suggesting that the federal tax shift is a large cause of our debt?

[zimmy]

You blame malloy. You state that red states are better financially. Malloy has reduced CT's debt; comparisons between states are illegitimate at best because of all the variables, inequity in dispersal of federal money is a big one. Whether Malloy says it or not, the $17 billion a year negative flow is a fact. I'm done with this thread.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You blame malloy. You state that red states are better financially. Malloy has reduced CT's debt; comparisons between states are illegitimate at best because of all the variables, inequity in dispersal of federal money is a big one. Whether Malloy says it or not, the $17 billion a year negative flow is a fact. I'm done with this thread.

"You blame malloy"

No. I blame liberal economics. And Malloy whole-heartedly supports liberal economics in all of its retarded majesty. So my point, again, is this...of course I concede that Mallow wasn't governor before 2011. But if he had been governor since 1985, we'd be in the exact same mess, because he embraces the same exact policies that brought us here. He brought no new ideas to the table. He implemented a massive tax hike, and increased spending. .

"Malloy has reduced CT's debt..."

A bit, yes. Not to the point where our state is more competitive, not to the point that our cost of living has come down, not to the point where we're not in serious trouble. Zimmy, when you implement a crippling tax hike, you don't have to be a Nobel Prize winner in economics to reduce the debt a bit.

Zimmy, conservative governors in Ohio, Wisconsin, and NJ have also reduced their debt, and they did it WITHOUT raising taxes. Malloy did it by implementing the largest tax hike in the history of our state. Do you not see a difference in those 2 solutions?

"the $17 billion a year negative flow is a fact"

Yes it is. And it's also a fact that the vast majority of that gap evaporates when you consider how much more we pay in state taxes. It's also a fact that not even the governors of those states blame their debt on the federal tax shift.

You ignore everything which does not serve your agenda. You keep saying CT has a low debt-to-GDP ratio, and I keep showing you data to refute that.