So Scott Kaupin wailed that his town, Enfield, population 45,000, could be punished for Connecticut’s budget mess. Unless the state’s employee unions accept a package for savings and concessions, Enfield would lose a courthouse, the local Department of Motor Vehicles office and a state prison that employs 225 people.
The nerve of Gov. Daniel P. Malloy.
“The sense in town is that Enfield is being treated unfairly by the Malloy administration,” cried Kaupin, who is mayor of Enfield. “These facilities serve a lot of people in north-central Connecticut.”
Kaupin is in curious company with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, NY state Sen. Charles Fuschillo of Long Island and a once obscure county supervisor from California, Jeff Stone. Four of the five are Republicans and none will raise taxes, at least for the wealthy. The Republicans no doubt refuse to violate the GOP tax mantra and lone Democrat Cuomo promised no tax increases and must work with a state Senate narrowly controlled by Republicans.
They had the gall to gripe about the threatened loss of services because they refused, if indirectly, to impose taxes on the rich.
Malloy, a Democrat, proposed the closings to fill a $1.6 billion budget gap in case the unions reject the proposal for savings and concessions. Unlike many other governors, Malloy presented a balanced plan combining cuts in services, union concessions and a palatable set of tax increases. Cuomo, Christie and other governors have rebuffed all efforts to raise taxes on the wealthy, depending solely on the other two measures.
The closures threaten to pulverize Enfield. Country Diner owner Joe Ravalese said the shutdowns would “assassinate” small businesses, which means customer traffic to his restaurant would vanish, according to The Hartford Courant. (Hartford Courant, 7/18/11) Church pastor the Rev. John Morgans warned that many Enfielders already endure hunger and homelessness, adding, “People are going to be hurt. They’re putting a dollar figure on people’s pain and that’s not right.”
Kaupin’s Republican friends never thought of that in Congress and other states when they vowed never to increase taxes.
The governors who control the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey balked at plans to boost tolls on bridges and tunnels across the Hudson River and between New Jersey and Staten Island in early August 2011. Among the proposed increases, motorists who pay cash must spend almost double, from $8 to $15. PATH train passengers would pay an extra $1 each way, to $2.75, to travel from Manhattan to Jersey City, Hoboken and Newark.
The New York Times related this scenario: “Governors often like to step in and halt unpopular increases and fees, and raising Port Authority tolls tends to bring about a familiar political dance: the agency puts forward a bracing plan to make drivers pay more, the public reacts angrily, and governors relish the role of advocate for the overburdened commuter, and, usually, a more reasonable compromise is reached.” (nyt, a13, 8/6/11)
Cuomo and Christie claimed they were caught flatfooted, even though they select the PA’s board and its top administrative staff. New York state Sen. Fuschillo of Nassau County, who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, said, “The Port Authority’s proposal to dramatically raise tolls is both absurd and insulting to the overburdened residents and businesses who will be forced to pay substantially more to use the bridges and tunnels,” as quoted in The New York Daily News. (nydn, p4, 8/7/11)
It gets especially delicate for Christie.
New Jersey Assemblyman John S. Wisniewski, a Democrat, dubbed the proposal “Chris Christie’s toll increase.” He recounted Christie’s order to the PA in 2010 to redistribute $1.8 billion earmarked for the controversial Hudson River train tunnel that was eliminated because of its cost; the money was used for road and highway repairs. Revenue from the planned hikes would generate $720 million.
Wisniewski, chairman of the State Assembly’s transportation committee, told the Times, “If you say you’re not going to raise taxes on anybody to fund transportation, it’s disingenuous to take money from the Port Authority and have them raise tolls, and act as if you’re not responsible.”
Across the country, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone urged the creation of “South California” - a conglomeration of 11 inland counties and the coastal Orange and San Diego counties. They would break free of the liberal influence of Los Angeles and San Francisco because of the glut of regulations, power of public unions, cost of state prisons, lax immigration enforcement, business closings and diversion of state funds from local communities.
It did not seem to occur to Stone that his Republican friends in the state legislature have blocked all attempts at tax increases to provide more money for his region. In fact, secession from “North California” would mean the loss of Republican lawmakers who blocked the tax increases.
It also might have escaped Stone’s attention that the L.A. and S.F. regions generate far more tax revenues than “South California.” Besides, we must wonder why Orange and San Diego counties - wealthy in their own right - would want to carry its poorer, inland cousins.
