The Courant reports that Governor Rell is considering a full or partial veto of the criminal justice bill based by the General Assembly last week due to the cost.
The bill, passed in response to home invasions in Cheshire and New Britain, toughens the penalties for repeat violent offenders. But what’s cause concern for Jodi Rell is the the $10 million included for more prosecutors, probation officers, state police and other criminal justice programs.
With economy being what it is (apologies to those folks on CTLP who still persist in insisting that everything is hunky dory - you’re a privileged few if you aren’t feeling the pain, my friends) Rell is of the opinion the state is facing fiscal troubles and therefore she does not think significant new spending is prudent.
According to the Courant:
The Republican governor said it’s “very likely” she will have to veto the bill or just the sections that call for new spending. Rell has the authority to veto portions of a bill, in addition to the entire legislation.
“I have said three words, over and over and over and over again: no new spending for next year,” she said. “We are facing financial hardships. We are looking at revenue declining each and every day.”
Her budget staff is looking at ways to reduce the $18.5 billion tax and spending plan already approved for the 2008-09 fiscal year, which begins July 1. Rell said that might be a way to cover some new spending, but warned that policymakers need to “tread lightly” and not count on too much.
The state’s surplus, as of last week, was down to $15 million. Rell said she guesses it will ultimately drop further, possibly into deficit territory.
In the same Courant article, it was mentioned that Rell is interested in finding ways to lower the state’s gas tax, although “she doesn’t support an early retirement incentive program, which was suggested by her fellow Republicans as a way to roll back the state gas tax during the summer months.”
I was listening to an interesting discussion on NPR this morning about Hillary Clinton’s new ad in Indiana about taxing windfall profits on oil companies to lower the gas tax over the summer:
“Hillary Clinton knows it’s time to act, take some of the windfall profits of big oil to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer, investigate the oil giants for price gouging and collusion,” the ad said. Interestingly, most of the callers-in to the show felt that it was pandering and short term thinking. The view of most of the people calling in was that it was better for people to feel the pain and learn to use less gas to have have a short term fix. One caller went as far as calling it “buying votes for $40 a piece”.
What do you think?
17 responses so far ↓
1 Joe Sixpack // Apr 29, 2008 at 2:42 pm ·
+3
She can do a line item veto and strike only the money portions of the bill. It would retain the somewhat increased penalty portion, and the prosecutor accountability piece. But isn’t it just like a liberal D to have to toss money into every bill containing a good conservative concept? I guess the $10 million is the “sugar” that makes the medicine taste a little better…. .
And how about our AG? Absolutely got his butt kicked by Fed Court Judge Kravitz when they tossed out his baseless lawsuit against NCLB. Makes our press hungry boy look like an absolute incompetent lawyer.
2 Red Baron // Apr 29, 2008 at 4:35 pm ·
+2
House currently debating Ethics reform package
http://cthouserules.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/ethics-on-tap-today-in-the-house/
3 Genghis Conn // Apr 29, 2008 at 4:49 pm ·
--4
It’s also like most Rs as well. I remind you of Congress during the years 2001-2007!
4 Quod Felix // Apr 29, 2008 at 7:37 pm ·
+2
Won’t they just raise prices to cover the windfall profits tax?
It is pandering, and I’m glad to see some voters see through it. How much is the federal tax? 17 cents a gallon? So if my tank is 14 gallons and I fill up once a week, I’d potentially save $2.21 a week. That’s relief?
I’m tempted to spend my tax refund on contributing to the Obama campaign. Wouldn’t THAT be ironic?
5 getgear // Apr 29, 2008 at 8:43 pm ·
--6
Red Baron said:
Our tax dollars are at work so Red Baron can blog on CTLP!
6 El Kabong // Apr 29, 2008 at 9:43 pm ·
+6
getgear said:
Haven’t I seen stuff from Derek Slapper here during the day?
7 gmr // Apr 29, 2008 at 10:00 pm ·
+3
The windfall profits tax would not lower prices at the pump. Exxon Mobil, and the other oil companies for that matter, all have lower profit margins than many companies. It’s simply that they’re so large that their actual dollar profits are high. But Apple, for instance, makes a much higher percentage profit than any oil company.
8 You're kidding.....right? // Apr 29, 2008 at 10:36 pm ·
+2
GMR has it right.
Additional taxes on Exxon would simply damage the return of the majority of 401K’s and other long term accounts nationally.
Here’s a link to who owns Exxon
Tax the oil companies and we’ll see it at the pumps PLUS our savings will fail to preform; sounds like a plan.
9 Jack Dobb // Apr 29, 2008 at 10:50 pm ·
+3
Since when does it qualify as a “windfall,” anyhow? Their profits are only high because people are buying their product. Lesson learned: don’t mess with the laws of supply and demand.
10 CTNewsjunkie // Apr 29, 2008 at 10:57 pm ·
--3
Just in case anyone was wondering, the legislative staffers who blog here at work on the public dime have permission from their bosses to do so. I don’t know how I feel about that, both as a taxpayer and owner of a new media site. It may make for an interesting discussion in the future.
11 gerardw // Apr 30, 2008 at 4:30 am ·
+0
Jack Dobb said:
Is this a trick question? Since there’s a political campaign going on, obviously.
12 gerardw // Apr 30, 2008 at 4:32 am ·
+1
How is that different than government employees spending work time talking with reporters?
13 jbond007 // Apr 30, 2008 at 9:47 am ·
+1
What about the lobbyists who blog on here sitting in the LOB or the Capitol? Obviously, that is a very bad use of state property by those 3rd class citizens…
14 primusinterpares // Apr 30, 2008 at 11:43 am ·
+0
Econ 101: if demand is inelastic any tax will be passed on to the CONSUMER.
Taxing the profits of the “oil giants” is a back door tax on the middle class and small businesses who NEED oil. But the democrats know that.
15 You're kidding.....right? // Apr 30, 2008 at 12:35 pm ·
+4
CTNewsjunkie said:
One would expect that both parties have a number of political operatives on the state payroll in addition to constituent service staffers and others.
Separating politics from government can’t be accomplished as the two are conjoined twins sharing one heart but two brains.
16 Republitarian // Apr 30, 2008 at 10:52 pm ·
+0
“Separating politics from government can’t be accomplished as the two are conjoined twins sharing one heart but two brains.”
Sorry, at this point I see no heart and no brains.
Just a lot of tentacles and slime.
17 ACR // Apr 30, 2008 at 11:18 pm ·
+0
>>Sorry, at this point I see no heart and no brains.
Just a lot of tentacles and slime.
It only looks like that on TV or in the Courant.
Mostly we have a bunch of well meaning people of every stripe that are not too good at collaborative thinking, and even worse at compromise.
Further - most of them don’t even realize how lousy they are at the above or begin to grasp that *they* could be part of the problem.
The end result is; too much arguing and not enough sitting around with a decent cup of coffee and a cigar - just talking…and maybe, just maybe occasionally listening to their constituents and even (maybe) each other.
The fact is, and the Dems will argue this I’m sure - there are more moderate “let’s fix this (whatever) no matter what” Republicans than there are Democrats with the same attitude.
That could be due to the sheer numbers the Dems enjoy; many may feel they have no reason to be reasonable.
You must log in to post a comment.