Paul Bass Photos
Don’t just cut the state budget across the board. Do the hard work of making choices.
And start with cutting the Board of Regents for Higher Education.
A Democrat and a Republican agreed with those first steps for tackling the latest budget crisis in Hartford.
Democratic New Haven State Sen. Gary Winfield and Republican State Sen. Joe Markley — reached that consensus on their latest joint appearance on WNHH radio’s “Dateline New Haven.”
They were talking about the $120 million deficit Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s administration just announced for the current fiscal year. It comes on the heels of a separate $103 million deficit Malloy announced last month which he closed by making controversial budget recissions on his own without the involvement of legislators.
This time Malloy has invited Democratic and Republican legislators to join him in crafting cuts to close the gap. That puts both parties on the spot to make hard choices rather than posture. (Click here to read a story about that by the CT Mirror’s Mark Pazniokas.)
One Democrat, House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey, has proposed slashing the state budget by 2.5 percent across the board.
On WNHH’s “Dateline,” Markley and Winfield agreed that that would be a mistake.
“We have an obligation to set priorities,” Markley said.
“It’s a dangerous thing to do,” Winfield remarked, noting that across-the-board cuts could “destroy” some needed departments’ programs, while others could cushion the blow. “The job of the legislature is to do the difficult thing.”
Neither senator had a list of specific proposed cuts ready that would add up to $120 million.
But they repeated their agreement (from a previous episode) that cuts could being with the troubled Board of Regents of Higher Education, which has seen five leaders come and go in three years while failing to bring about promised improvements to the state higher education system. Markley argued the whole board could be whittled down to two employees with oversight shared by existing executive branch appointees. Markley argued that almost the entire $20 million can be cut, with oversight duties assumed by existing administration officials and volunteer board members. Winfield estimated possible savings at around $5 million. (Click here for a story where they spoke about that in more detail.)
Winfield and Markley further agreed that the upcoming mid-year cuts shouldn’t touch municipal aid, one pot of money some cost-cutters are eyeing.
“That’s just passing the buck” to towns and cities, Markley said. “You can’t just pull the rug out from under them” mid-year.
The legislature shouldn’t put Gov. Malloy’s long-term transportation infrastructure improvements in a constituional “lockbox” so legislators can’t touch it. Again, their argument centered on not avoiding tough choices. Plus, Markley argued, citing a previous constitutional amendment that was supposed to limit state spending but which legislators bypassed by placing some spending in off-budget accounts. “It’s ridiculous to say, ‘Tie my hands so I don’t keep sinning,’” Markley said.
One more point of agreement between the urban Democrat and the Tea Party Republican: That the state should still look at restoring at least some of the $63.4 million in Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals that Malloy cut in the last round of recissions. Even though at least another $103 million of cuts loom.
2 Takes On Labor Concessions
Markley and Winfield did take different positions on one major potential cost-saving measure under consideration: concessions from state labor unions.
Markley noted that even some top Democrats — Gov. Malloy and State Sen. Beth Bye —have publicly put that option on the table.
Winfield noted in response that labor unions already made major concessions five years ago to close a deficit in Malloy’s first year in office: “They are not required to do anything [else under their contracts] until 2017, 2022, depending what you’re talkng about. I don’t know how you go back” and get concessions.
That previous deal in 2011 was involved “shared sacrifice” involving labor concessions and tax increases, Markley responded.
“This is part of the problem with the conversation,” said Winfield. “The conversation breaks down to the unions versus the taxpayers, as if the people in the unions don’t contribute to the tax base. They do. If they did make a sacrifice [in 2011], they didn’t make it just in terms of benefits. They made that sacrifice plus thet tax sacrifice. That’s part of the reason the unions are reticient to come back. It’s never acknowledged that way.”
Markley proclaimed himself “sympathetic” to workers’ desire “to make as much money as you can make.” But, he said, state workers have gone from earning less than private sector counterparts to more in recent years. “We have to ask if we can afford to pay the average state worker what we’re paying them at this point.”
The two disagreed, too, on taxes. Why not raise some taxes on the wealthy rather than cut all $103 million? Democrat Malloy has put that option off the table; Markley agreed with that idea. Winfield said if he had his way, that option would remain possible.
Click on the above sound file to hear the entire episode, in which Winfield and Markley also discussed the victory of the Liberal party in Canadian elections and last week’s U.S. Democratic presidential debate.