Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Connecticut Democrat Governor Prepares 'Doomsday' Budget

Isn't it strange that a host of new governors around the nation are taking on an inherited budget mess, yet only those states led by Republicans seem to be the focus of the media? Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich in Ohio are examples of two GOP governors newly elected on a promise of restoring fiscal sanity in their states. Yet you'd think it was the end of the world what with all the union temper tantrums.

Meanwhile in New York Andrew Cuomo cut enormous amounts of state aid to public schools and we've heard barely a peep from the unions and their media enablers. Now we read that the Governor of Connecticut, Dan Malloy, is preparing a "doomsday" budget scenario in the event the unions don't approve concessions.

Strange how the White House and their union henchmen haven't sent marching orders to storm the statehouse, isn't it?
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has developed a "doomsday" contingency plan that could drastically slash local budgets throughout Connecticut if state unions balk at approving $1 billion in savings and concessions.

Under the scenario, a copy of which was obtained by Hearst Connecticut Newspapers, Bridgeport would lose $67 million of the $188 million it received this year in state aid.

About $10.4 million would be taken away from Danbury; Stamford would lose $4.9 million; Greenwich would be cut by $1.8 million; and Norwalk's support would be reduced by $5 million.

Roy Occhiogrosso, Malloy's top adviser, said that if unions do not agree to concessions, the governor would not seek from towns and cities the full $1 billion initially envisioned in labor savings.

Nonetheless, cuts in state programs above and beyond the $780 million Malloy proposed in February, as well as reductions in municipal aid, would be part of any revised plan in seeking savings for the fiscal year that starts July 1.

"It's a representation of what could happen," Occhiogrosso said, adding that the spreadsheet was developed in part to address criticism Malloy has received for not cutting spending in a manner similar to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose budget cut payments to towns and cities by $4.6 billion.

"Governor Malloy has been asked several times in different forums over the last few weeks and editorials and columns have been written asking, `Why not do what Governor Cuomo has done in New York?' " Occhiogrosso said in an interview. "The equivalent in Connecticut would be to cut a billion dollars in aid to cities and towns, and this document reflects what it would mean in real life."

The contingency plan calling for deep cuts to municipal aid is likely to be viewed as equal parts negotiating tool and trial balloon. Its disclosure comes at a crucial time for Malloy's negotiations with unions and as legislative leaders start to offer their own revisions to the governor's spending plan.

James Finley, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said Tuesday the contingency plan would be disastrous for cash-strapped towns and cities.

"This is a doomsday budget option, and I think it's designed to show that if Connecticut takes the same path as New York and others, it would devastate local services and lead to massive teacher layoffs in Connecticut," Finley said in a phone interview.
Well, you could just stay the course and go bankrupt then. How would that suit you?


bitterclinger said...

All of those CT libs are always screaming that higher taxes are the answer.  Well, it looks like they're going to get their wish.  Enjoy, libtards!

srdem65 said...

Dems; good.  Repubs; bad.   Unions; good. Bosses; bad.
Just that simple.

Joseph said...

Actually, Malloy and Cuomo are cowards.  By simply reducing the amount of aid they are sending to the cities, without changing the binding arbitration laws, it forces the towns to select which Union workers they will lay off. Walker's changes in Wisconsin allow changes to compensation. Instead, towns in NY and Conn have no choice but to lay off workers.

the wolf said...

Fiscal realities have no party affiliation.  As Joseph points out, there are different manners in which these realities have to be confronted, but confronted they must be.