Putting Off the Tough Decisions

By State Rep. Richard F. Ferrari

There are times in Hartford when we vote in favor of measures coming before us for consideration on the House floor even though we believe they may be seriously flawed. When uncomfortable choices like that arise, you have to decide whether the legislation before you will, on balance, be more helpful than harmful to the state and its citizens.

Because we were faced with a potential deficit projected at about $300 million that had to be addressed, I reluctantly voted for the measure that came up for a vote at around 3 a.m. on the morning of November 16 during the recent special legislative session called by Governor Rowland to act on revisions to the state budget.

Democratic leaders in consultation with Governor Rowland and House and Senate Republican leaders drafted the proposal I supported. The reason I voted for it is that it lowers spending by about $200 million—in part by manipulating and reducing spending on some programs. My main objection to the measure is that it puts off $100 million in spending reductions until the 2002 legislative session—thereby allowing the state's fiscal problems to potentially get worse over the next three to four months. By biting the bullet during the special session and making the difficult decisions that need to be made on spending reductions, we would have taken the necessary first steps that are needed to get our economic house in order.

The measure we approved relies too heavily on borrowing and fiscal gimmicks to cover certain state expenditures—and not enough on actual spending reductions. I also strongly opposed the proposal to put off for a year the phase-out of the inheritance tax. It is a tax increase, and one that breaks the promise we made to the people of Connecticut that the death tax would be eliminated once and for all.

Their bill does not adequately reduce state spending to equal the shortfall in revenues the state is likely to receive during the current fiscal year (2001-02) and the next one (2002-03). We could and should have made reductions in spending that would have held growth in the 2001-02 budget between 2% and 2.5% rather than the 4.5 % increase approved earlier this year. We could have done it by postponing the implementation of new programs approved during the 2001 legislative session—which only would have affected a few people and would have made the cuts relatively painless.

As legislators, sometimes we have to choose the option that does the least harm, and that was the case with the bill we approved during the special session to address the deficit. It gives us a starting point for the difficult decisions we will have to make during the 2002 session that will enable us to live within our means and give our economy the breathing space it needs to recover. I voted for this bill because, despite its inadequacies, it was better than doing nothing. That does not mean we could not have done a better job during the special session.

But the bottom line is that the Democrats control the state legislature and their leaders did not have the political courage to lower taxes and make the spending reductions that were needed to deal with the deficit once and for all, to jump start our state's economy, and to restore the jobs that have been lost over the past several months in Connecticut. They chose to appease the special interests they rely on to preserve their majorities instead of doing the right thing for all the people of Connecticut.