News-Times
December 6, 2009
Every year, my colleagues in the General Assembly descend upon the Capitol with lofty ideas and high minded rhetoric about how to change the world.
Unfortunately, the pursuit of making Connecticut a better place too often leads lawmakers to over-legislate and pass one-size-fits-all mandates that are handed down to municipalities without any regard to what actually works or is feasible for a particular community. The details aren’t thought out- but the press conference declaring victory ALWAYS is.
This wouldn’t be so bad if these laws didn’t come with a price tag- a price tag that the state almost never picks up in full or in part. Like a bad date who slides the bill your way at the end of dinner at an expensive restaurant, the Legislature passes laws then tells Connecticut’s 169 cities and towns to figure out how to pay for it.
More often than not, these laws result in higher property taxes for state residents. Local government has only one way to raise revenue- property taxes- so these mandates are a burden in both good times and in bad. However, cuts to state aid compound the impact.
This is where we find ourselves today. The state of Connecticut is in dire financial straits- staring down a $624 million deficit just five months into the current two year budget. In the next budget cycle, we will have to grapple with a $3.2 billion deficit, and job losses are projected to continue to mount. It is possible, if not likely, that state aid to municipalities will be cut.
This is not a solution I favor. I would like to see the state eliminate wasteful spending programs, consolidate state agencies, and reduce entitlements to state workers. However, reducing the size of government has never been welcomed by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
Thus, if reductions in municipal aid do occur, state government should at very least get rid of the mandates on municipalities that it refuses to pay for. I have recently been appointed by Governor Rell to a board that will make recommendations on which of these laws to eliminate in order to ease the burden on local budgets. I hope that my colleagues take our recommendations seriously, and offset in whole or at least in part these reductions in municipal aid with elimination of laws that are costly to cities and towns.
Many of these laws, like mandated in-school suspension, are well-meaning. However in this budget crisis, that no longer matters. There is no more money to pay for things we’d like to do but aren’t essential for the majority of citizens- not at the state level, and not at the local level. In order to recover, we must take a good hard look at non-essential expenditures and wipe out that which we can live without. Talking about the good things a law will do doesn’t make it affordable.
As the old adage goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
State Representative John H. Frey (R-111) represents Ridgefield in the General Assembly and is ser