Hey what town is that? I'm looking to buy a home soonish.
Stuck in SECT because of work but if there's a town with affordable electric I'd be willing to commute
Well it's mostly that I wanna GTFO where I am because tons of people are moving here and tons more are slated to because of work and I don't want to live around this many people I want to have some land and privacy.
CT municipal power companies consistently [outperform Eversource](https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2020/08/13/20200813_nonprofit_municipal_utilities_weather_storm_differently/) on just about every metric you can think of while charging 40% less on average.
I can’t speak to those two - are you saying they own the hydro dams?
Wallingford buys from whomever is cheapest. They aren’t required to meet PURA minimums, so they generally don’t. They don’t buy from dominion at all, for instance.
That’s also wrong. Norwich’s energy mix is only 20% renewables.
That’s not the same as green - I don’t know what their total mix is, they might meet the PURA minimum or might not. But the dams are a small minority of their power, according to their website. Solar plus hydro is around 20%
How about *no?*
We still have massive pension obligations. Yes, we've paid down a ton and things are much better, but how about we just solve the problem outright?
The pension debt is $37B. Annual budget is $26B. Not great, obviously, but this is a massive improvement over even 5 years ago. We are now able to accommodate full payment indefinitely on that debt within the annual budget, and capture surplus expenditures to speed up repayment. After all that, we're still expecting $1B surpluses over at least the next three budget cycles.
Sure, some of that should go toward paying down debt. But the argument that we can't afford basic human-capital, or to honor pre-agreed labor agreements, or that we can't afford infrastructure investment: it's all nonsense at this point.
Look, I'm a public school teacher. I'm EXTREMELY in favor of the state honoring it's contracts with me and with everyone else! But we don't need to tap the surplus to do that.
Our pension debt situation is absolutely far better than even five years ago, and we are certainly projected to keep running billion-dollar surpluses for a while. *However* this will all go away if and when we have our next recession.
I'd rather just pay off our debts *now*, so we aren't put in an awful position in a few years when the next inevitable recession hits where we're forced to make deep cuts.
> I'd rather just pay off our debts now, so we aren't put in an awful position in a few years when the next inevitable recession hits
Agree. The ‘miracle’ of compound interest works in reverse, too. Paying down debt reduces future obligations and helps to weather periodic fluctuations in revenue.
> The pension debt is $37B. Annual budget is $26B. Not great, obviously, but this is a massive improvement over even 5 years ago.
Right and this is *because of the law in question*. Any choice to throw out the philosophy that got us back on track because we stopped drowning should be met with extreme skepticism.
> But the argument that we can't afford basic human-capital, or to honor pre-agreed labor agreements, or that we can't afford infrastructure investment: it's all nonsense at this point.
It's not black and white. We still pay for the things you mention either way. It's simply a matter of how much.
>We are now able to accommodate full payment indefinitely on that debt within the annual budget, and capture surplus expenditures to speed up repayment. After all that, we're still expecting $1B surpluses over at least the next three budget cycles.
Dude, don't cherry pick my own damned comment. We got into that position because governors of both parties did not fully fund pension payments. Pension payments are now fully funded, and we have extra income on top of that. That is called a "surplus."
Obviously there are trade offs and not everything is black and white, but either we're paying to feed kids at school or we're charging them for it. Some things are pretty binary; and yes, we do have the money for it.
seeing that $37B number is timely with this making the rounds today - [https://www.reddit.com/r/Millennials/comments/1cl6j11/how\_the\_us\_is\_destroying\_young\_peoples\_future/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Millennials/comments/1cl6j11/how_the_us_is_destroying_young_peoples_future/)
A reminder - that the pensions weren't actually pre-funded until the 1970's causing many of the issues we see now.
>Both systems have promised benefits to their members since 1939. But the benefits provided by SERS and TRS were not pre-funded until 1971 and 1982, respectively. Until then, benefits were paid each year from the State’s general revenues. The many years of unfunded benefits accrued over that period saddled both systems with unfunded liabilities that today account for nearly $9.3 billion of the combined $26 billion unfunded liability. The remaining portion of the unfunded liability comes from funding shortfalls – due to inadequate contributions, low investment returns relative to expectations, and negative actuarial experience – after the start dates.
We very much sold out the younger generations as a state. The Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers really did get these sweetheart deals.
The debt number takes into account their expected life spans. If they die earlier than expected then we will come out ahead. There are tier 2 retirees who will live another 40+ years as it stands
With that kind of surplus, they could put a really big dent in the pension funding shortage... You know, [the reason the fiscal rails exist to begin with?](https://insideinvestigator.org/connecticut-pension-funding-ranked-48th-in-nation/)
The faster it's paid off, the less in interest that needs to be paid. Eventually, they'll have all sorts of money available EVERY year because they're not paying down this debt anymore!
>Despite Connecticut’s dramatic reversal of its pension funding – from 36 percent funded in 2016 to 57 percent funded in 2023 – Connecticut remained in the bottom three for pension funding ahead of only New Jersey, Illinois, and Kentucky, according to the State of Pensions 2023 report, authored by Anthony Randazzo, who has written about Connecticut’s pension system in the past, and Jonathan Moody.
>State pension funds across all fifty states and Washington D.C. were posted an average funding of 78.1 percent, a nearly 4 percent increase from 2022, which the authors say is tied to better investment returns and “from supplemental contributions.”
The rails are doing their job. They need to keep letting it do so.
I can see shifting some of the tax burden from property taxes to income tax revenue, and I get that we need to pay down the pension debt. We have an adequate plan to pay that debt down already, but paying it down faster saves money in the long run. I get that.
But we can't say that we "can't afford" to feed children we mandate to be in school, or that we just have raise tuition at state colleges, or the state couldn't possibly chip in to electrify the Hartford line, or we have no money to address opioid addiction or the states crippling housing crisis, or \[insert other urgent need here\]... with $1B+ budget surpluses projected for years out.
If we're passing tax cuts and moving money around on balance sheets while these problems go unaddressed, we don't get to tell ourselves we can't afford to address these issues anymore. We're just choosing not to address them.
> But we can't say that we "can't afford" to feed children we mandate to be in school, or that we just have raise tuition at state colleges, or the state couldn't possibly chip in to electrify the Hartford line, or we have no money to address opioid addiction or the states crippling housing crisis, or [insert other urgent need here]... with $1B+ budget surpluses projected for years out.
The fact that your list here ends in "[insert other urgent need here]..." shows the problem. There will ALWAYS be one more "urgent" need no matter how many you address/solve and so, the existence of an "urgent need" cannot be the basis for deciding against paying down our debts.
> If we're passing tax cuts and moving money around on balance sheets while these problems go unaddressed, we don't get to tell ourselves we can't afford to address these issues anymore. We're just choosing not to address them.
As you admit, by paying down pension obligations, we end up with more money in the long run. In that sense, it can be considered addressing ALL problems that are aided by having more money in the long run even if it doesn't directly address them right now.
Similarly, tax cuts could be considered to be an alternate means to addressing some of these problems as well. In theory, "lower tuition by $x" and "give $x in tax refunds" can be financially equivalent policies with the former only helping state schools and the latter also helping people in other scenarios.
Of course, there will always be social problems, and there will always be a future recessions to plan for, there will not always be money available in the future to fix the problems that we do have money to now.
None of that means that you shouldn't invest in your human capital and infrastructure with the money you do have now.
We've paid $3.3B into the rainy day fund over the past three years. We're doing the fiscal responsibility part. The current surpluses are *on top of* fiscally responsible policy.
Reasonable people can disagree, but intentionally reducing the states revenues through tax cuts and then passing that cost onto students who are already experiencing the brunt of a housing crisis is bordering on cruel.
e - n't
one issue is committing a volatile income source (cap gains tax revenue) to expenses that aren’t volatile. Sure the markets been on the up, but one recession will blow a hole in that.
I mean, sure, there will always be an recession in the future, but that doesn't mean its a good idea to not invest in human capital and core infrastructure while you have the money to do so. Making more productive citizens pays for itself many times over in the long run, and infrastructure only gets more expensive to build and maintain.
But we do invest in these things. So, the disagreement isn't over whether we invest in these things, it's about where the arbitrary line is drawn for where we stop in order to balance other needs.
Paying down our pension debt faster arguably delivers a higher (and guaranteed) rate of return vs “investing in human capital”. Core infrastructure is a different story/assessment
Absurdity! There is some great and terrible injustice to rectify, a romantic vision to fulfill, and new state agency and/or non-profit to fund with public money. What fool would prioritize objective, realistic, and measureable solutions when grandiose aspirations are afoot?!?
I see no issue with taking any surplus over their projected goal and reinvesting in social programs. I also don't really see an issue in putting it all aside to pay some debt off since CT is the most debt burdened state in the US mostly due to a bloated and underfunded pension system.
I lean more towards that approach personally. I think the initial surplus goals were primarily to pay down debt anyway so why not pay more debt down and reinvest in growth. Not to say we can't also invest some of it in social programs, but CT is seriously lacking in economic growth, and without that nothing is going to be sustainable.
IMO would be foolish to not payoff our pension obligations as fast as possible. The faster we pay them off the faster we decrease our states annual debt service costs, which frees up cash flow for the budget and is actually recurring, unlike the volatile cap gains income democrats for some reason want to now label as steady income…
CT needs to build some damn apartments and denser SFHs if they want anybody to stay here.
Seriously, look at the rents people are paying in East Hartford. That should be extremely cheap, and it is emphatically *not*.
*Every* new complex is always luxury. The affordable complexes are the ones left over after the new ones are built that have to drop rents to attract tenants, or renovate at considerable cost. We also aren't permitting new units at even a tenth the rate we should be.
The reason we have such a lack of affordable housing is that multifamily construction ground to an absolute halt in the GFC.
De minimis tax cut. Basically a way to say we cut taxes without actually changing anyone’s life or attracting new employers with a more favorable tax climate
Use the money to help schools pay for special education.
Fund the pensions programs
Increase funding to towns so they can lower the mill rate as a whole.
Isnt that cute, you think they'd lower the mill rate if they got more.
all they know how to do is spend. If they suddenly got more money they're have a meeting to discuss how to spend it.
As a West Hartford resident I can verify that this comment is spot on. They increased the mill rate on us again even though property values are already way up and they are benefitting from low inventory and high price assessments, essentially double dipping on sucking more money out of residents.
They'll probably funnel more cash to CTInnovations lol
Which for those unaware is CT's "public" investment company...... that legit has provided zero resources to homegrown CT companies 🫠🫢 oh and they have a mangement fee of 5% which is roughly 5x the industry average🫢🥳
For better or worse, servicing the pension debt is something like 10% of the state’s annual budget. Each dollar put in now permanently reduces that contribution, freeing up those dollars for other purposes.
I’d rather the state clear that debt early & then refocus the money. Let’s get the lodestone off of our backs sooner rather than later.
Invest all surpluses into a Connecticut sovereign wealth fund and use the dividends to improve the state/ fund projects in the future. Like Norway
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tFyBMX2OO4Q&pp=ygUcbm9yd2F5IHNvdmVyZWlnbiB3ZWFsdGggZnVuZA%3D%3D
First, the surplus here is predominantly based on last years large run in asset prices, which isn’t something we should count on for revenues. More importantly $1B isn’t even a drop in the bucket. We have $55B in state debt plus another quarter trillion in unfunded liabilities.
The politicians pretending this 1B is “extra” and should be spent are just digging the hole deeper for the next generation.
This is the case in districts with a higher poverty/low income rate. In Stamford its free (no application needed). Would be nice to see it rolled out state wide
I don’t know. I’m for free food for poor kids, even expanding the program a bit up the economic ladder, but I make a very good living and both my kids get free food even though we don’t need it because of where they go to school. I’m happy to pay for it rather than making taxpayers feed my kids.
I get what your saying, but means-testing these things requires paperwork, paperwork requires people to read the paperwork, people to read the paperwork costs money that could be going to feed kids. Plus systems where kids know who's getting free lunches and who isn't creates all kinds of stigma that really isn't necessary.
So, ya, you're not wrong, but let's just feed the kids.
> means-testing these things requires paperwork, paperwork requires people to read the paperwork, people to read the paperwork costs money that could be going to feed kids.
That just means we have to weigh the bureaucratic cost vs the savings, not that we have to just reject it blindly.
> Plus systems where kids know who's getting free lunches and who isn't creates all kinds of stigma that really isn't necessary.
That can just be solved having all lunch prepaid or billed after the fact. In college each kid had a card that they swipe at the dining hall.
> but let's just feed the kids.
The context is talking about a kid who gets fed either way, so "let's just feed the kids" kid of misrepresents what is being discussed.
Right, programs and their implementation should be planned according to cost, effectiveness, efficiency, negative externalities, among many other considerations.
Means testing [can reduce costs, but often at the expense of effectiveness](https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/means-testing-and-its-limits). I think in the case of CT – where means testing kids meals would involve coordination between the state government and 160+ municipalities that would now be expected to implement that means testing – the added saving would need to be balanced against the added administrative burden placed on town governments that are already severely understaffed.
The literature on the [psychological damage to children](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/free-school-meals-stigma/) by shaming caused by means-testing food accessibility speaks for itself.
So, ya, if means testing is going to make it more difficult, less efficient, and more psychologically damaging to feed already vulnerable children, then we should just. feed. the. kids.
e - spelz and punctuation
We're not even necessarily talking means testing here. The context of this conversation is a person saying that they wouldn't opt for free lunches. If you did *no means testing* but simply made the program opt-in, that person would be able to get their way and save the school or state money. So, you're already jumping a little ahead by equating "free lunch for all" with means testing. And even in that process, it is a spectrum. Means testing doesn't necessarily have to be rigorous.
> I think in the case of CT – where means testing kids meals would involve coordination between the state government and 160+ municipalities that would now be expected to implement that means testing
There is nothing that says it needs to be implemented that inefficiently. There could be one single system. Heck, that system doesn't even have to be specific to meals. When you apply for medicaid or some other existing program, you can just be automatically opted in to free meals.
> The literature on the psychological damage to children by shaming caused by means-testing food accessibility speaks for itself.
The link you provide supports what I said which is that this psychological damage comes from visible cues of who is getting a free meal which go away if you simply have the paying not take place at school. Again, if every kid had access to the same exact meals and got those meals by swiping the same exact card, this psychological damage would go away, but you would retain the ability to have the funding for those cards be different based on the circumstance.
Your kid is getting screwed left and right by US taxpayers, his social mobility has been decimated these past few decades
Free school lunch is the least taxpayers owe you
The lunches are so wild here, some days they have 3 veggies/fruit options and an okay protein, some days they give 3 mozzarella sticks and no sides. I don’t get how they plan it
The closest to healthy we had in school was this disgusting fake chicken Caesar salad and burnt ass sweet potato fries. We also had soggy ass baby carrots.
Thanks Michelle
lol and when this temporary money runs out?
Just like with the temporary Covid relief funds they'll panic that they funded permanent things with a temporary inflow of money.
These are not temporary funds.
>With the latest projections, the overall state budget surplus this fiscal year is projected to exceed $1 billion for [the fifth time in six years](https://osc.ct.gov/reports/), according to records from the state comptroller’s office. (In 2019-20, when the coronavirus first struck Connecticut, the state still finished a healthy [$569 million in the black](https://osc.ct.gov/reports/monthly/2020/Sept17LtrFY20.html).) And the numbers say two more $1 billion surpluses are achievable by 2026.
> The state’s considerable pension debt also is considerable, totaling more than $37 billion entering this year, according to Lamont’s budget office.
Leave it alone.
literally just wrote a paper for school about how they’re cutting $62m from education and how disastrous it’ll be lmao
it’d nice if they put any of it towards that
The democrats championing capital gains income as not volatile look so foolish - did they learn nothing from the 08-09 recession, or even from covid which required massive federal stimulus to prop up our economy and stock market?
I really hope voters speak out in opposition. CT has made great strides towards tackling our pension debt but still has nearly $40bn to address.
Imagine the new recurring available funds if we whittled that pension debt down and weren’t paying the corresponding interest expense? Maybe then we would actually have budget flexibility.
For real every time I got to waterbury they have billboards in abundance begging for teachers to apply.
Not worth it though In that zipcode with the rude violent kids, poor pay, lack of support from the board, and much more.
Typical CT thinking.
"Hey, we are boning the citizens out of a billion dollars we aren't entitled to. I've got a great idea, let's just spend it! Screw the peons!"
Use it subsidize dense mixed use developments in close proximity to high frequency transit like fast track and rail stations. This is sustainable growth and will spur a lot of private investment as well
They don’t need to subsidize these developments - private sector wants to spend around train stations, but town push back prevents them in many cases.
Funny enough if you look at the real estate goldmine that is the empty fields surrounding New Haven Union Station - the city owns that land and should take the blame for it being a barren wasteland with no normal income apartments, offices, restaurants, shopping, coffee shops etc…just empty grass, trees and homeless activity next to one of the busiest train stations in the country smh
Also, Hartford has a weirdly huge number of empty parking lots that are just *begging* to be turned into new apartments or townhomes. Same with brownfield sites and dead malls in EH, although they seem actually serious about redeveloping those.
It would be super cool if CT had its own public electric company. We could tell eversource and UI to go kick rocks.
As a resident of a town with its own power company. Its great
Hey what town is that? I'm looking to buy a home soonish. Stuck in SECT because of work but if there's a town with affordable electric I'd be willing to commute
Norwich runs its own power
https://cmeec.com/
Wallingford too
You gotta be a massive energy user for a modest savings on an electric bill to outweigh commute costs.
Well it's mostly that I wanna GTFO where I am because tons of people are moving here and tons more are slated to because of work and I don't want to live around this many people I want to have some land and privacy.
Norwich and Jewett City have their own power companies
that would entail CT being responsible enough to manage pension / retirement expenses.........which it failed to do for decades
CT municipal power companies consistently [outperform Eversource](https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2020/08/13/20200813_nonprofit_municipal_utilities_weather_storm_differently/) on just about every metric you can think of while charging 40% less on average.
They don't meet green energy requirements, is part of how they do that, though. Certainly not the whole reason, but it's a significant part of it.
How do they not meet green energy requirements? Norwich and Jewett City are hydro power. Doesn’t get much greener than that.
Ehhh. Hydro is certainly renewable but it is really negative to biodiversity in river systems.
I can’t speak to those two - are you saying they own the hydro dams? Wallingford buys from whomever is cheapest. They aren’t required to meet PURA minimums, so they generally don’t. They don’t buy from dominion at all, for instance.
Yes. Jewett City owns the dam on the Quinebaug, and Norwich DPU owns multiple dams on the Shetucket
That’s also wrong. Norwich’s energy mix is only 20% renewables. That’s not the same as green - I don’t know what their total mix is, they might meet the PURA minimum or might not. But the dams are a small minority of their power, according to their website. Solar plus hydro is around 20%
Ah, got ya. That’s a pretty unique situation then. Not something that would be relevant to a statewide takeover.
[удалено]
Most green energy in CT is nuclear. Hydro is a minuscule piece.
Barefoot
How about *no?* We still have massive pension obligations. Yes, we've paid down a ton and things are much better, but how about we just solve the problem outright?
The pension debt is $37B. Annual budget is $26B. Not great, obviously, but this is a massive improvement over even 5 years ago. We are now able to accommodate full payment indefinitely on that debt within the annual budget, and capture surplus expenditures to speed up repayment. After all that, we're still expecting $1B surpluses over at least the next three budget cycles. Sure, some of that should go toward paying down debt. But the argument that we can't afford basic human-capital, or to honor pre-agreed labor agreements, or that we can't afford infrastructure investment: it's all nonsense at this point.
Look, I'm a public school teacher. I'm EXTREMELY in favor of the state honoring it's contracts with me and with everyone else! But we don't need to tap the surplus to do that. Our pension debt situation is absolutely far better than even five years ago, and we are certainly projected to keep running billion-dollar surpluses for a while. *However* this will all go away if and when we have our next recession. I'd rather just pay off our debts *now*, so we aren't put in an awful position in a few years when the next inevitable recession hits where we're forced to make deep cuts.
> I'd rather just pay off our debts now, so we aren't put in an awful position in a few years when the next inevitable recession hits Agree. The ‘miracle’ of compound interest works in reverse, too. Paying down debt reduces future obligations and helps to weather periodic fluctuations in revenue.
> The pension debt is $37B. Annual budget is $26B. Not great, obviously, but this is a massive improvement over even 5 years ago. Right and this is *because of the law in question*. Any choice to throw out the philosophy that got us back on track because we stopped drowning should be met with extreme skepticism. > But the argument that we can't afford basic human-capital, or to honor pre-agreed labor agreements, or that we can't afford infrastructure investment: it's all nonsense at this point. It's not black and white. We still pay for the things you mention either way. It's simply a matter of how much.
>We are now able to accommodate full payment indefinitely on that debt within the annual budget, and capture surplus expenditures to speed up repayment. After all that, we're still expecting $1B surpluses over at least the next three budget cycles. Dude, don't cherry pick my own damned comment. We got into that position because governors of both parties did not fully fund pension payments. Pension payments are now fully funded, and we have extra income on top of that. That is called a "surplus." Obviously there are trade offs and not everything is black and white, but either we're paying to feed kids at school or we're charging them for it. Some things are pretty binary; and yes, we do have the money for it.
seeing that $37B number is timely with this making the rounds today - [https://www.reddit.com/r/Millennials/comments/1cl6j11/how\_the\_us\_is\_destroying\_young\_peoples\_future/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Millennials/comments/1cl6j11/how_the_us_is_destroying_young_peoples_future/)
A reminder - that the pensions weren't actually pre-funded until the 1970's causing many of the issues we see now. >Both systems have promised benefits to their members since 1939. But the benefits provided by SERS and TRS were not pre-funded until 1971 and 1982, respectively. Until then, benefits were paid each year from the State’s general revenues. The many years of unfunded benefits accrued over that period saddled both systems with unfunded liabilities that today account for nearly $9.3 billion of the combined $26 billion unfunded liability. The remaining portion of the unfunded liability comes from funding shortfalls – due to inadequate contributions, low investment returns relative to expectations, and negative actuarial experience – after the start dates. We very much sold out the younger generations as a state. The Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers really did get these sweetheart deals.
Number of millionaires pulling SS is unfuckingbelievable Meanwhile the fund no longer able to pay out in 11yrs in full Baby boomer pyramid schemes
The pension problem will solve itself when all the tier 1 and tier 2 retirees die.
The debt number takes into account their expected life spans. If they die earlier than expected then we will come out ahead. There are tier 2 retirees who will live another 40+ years as it stands
Gee thanks.
With that kind of surplus, they could put a really big dent in the pension funding shortage... You know, [the reason the fiscal rails exist to begin with?](https://insideinvestigator.org/connecticut-pension-funding-ranked-48th-in-nation/) The faster it's paid off, the less in interest that needs to be paid. Eventually, they'll have all sorts of money available EVERY year because they're not paying down this debt anymore! >Despite Connecticut’s dramatic reversal of its pension funding – from 36 percent funded in 2016 to 57 percent funded in 2023 – Connecticut remained in the bottom three for pension funding ahead of only New Jersey, Illinois, and Kentucky, according to the State of Pensions 2023 report, authored by Anthony Randazzo, who has written about Connecticut’s pension system in the past, and Jonathan Moody. >State pension funds across all fifty states and Washington D.C. were posted an average funding of 78.1 percent, a nearly 4 percent increase from 2022, which the authors say is tied to better investment returns and “from supplemental contributions.” The rails are doing their job. They need to keep letting it do so.
100% agree. Didn’t realize we are still in the bottom 3 on funding. Yikes
Exactly. That should be the singular focus of any surplus funds.
[удалено]
The money goes towards paying down our pension obligations already I thought?
I can see shifting some of the tax burden from property taxes to income tax revenue, and I get that we need to pay down the pension debt. We have an adequate plan to pay that debt down already, but paying it down faster saves money in the long run. I get that. But we can't say that we "can't afford" to feed children we mandate to be in school, or that we just have raise tuition at state colleges, or the state couldn't possibly chip in to electrify the Hartford line, or we have no money to address opioid addiction or the states crippling housing crisis, or \[insert other urgent need here\]... with $1B+ budget surpluses projected for years out. If we're passing tax cuts and moving money around on balance sheets while these problems go unaddressed, we don't get to tell ourselves we can't afford to address these issues anymore. We're just choosing not to address them.
> But we can't say that we "can't afford" to feed children we mandate to be in school, or that we just have raise tuition at state colleges, or the state couldn't possibly chip in to electrify the Hartford line, or we have no money to address opioid addiction or the states crippling housing crisis, or [insert other urgent need here]... with $1B+ budget surpluses projected for years out. The fact that your list here ends in "[insert other urgent need here]..." shows the problem. There will ALWAYS be one more "urgent" need no matter how many you address/solve and so, the existence of an "urgent need" cannot be the basis for deciding against paying down our debts. > If we're passing tax cuts and moving money around on balance sheets while these problems go unaddressed, we don't get to tell ourselves we can't afford to address these issues anymore. We're just choosing not to address them. As you admit, by paying down pension obligations, we end up with more money in the long run. In that sense, it can be considered addressing ALL problems that are aided by having more money in the long run even if it doesn't directly address them right now. Similarly, tax cuts could be considered to be an alternate means to addressing some of these problems as well. In theory, "lower tuition by $x" and "give $x in tax refunds" can be financially equivalent policies with the former only helping state schools and the latter also helping people in other scenarios.
Of course, there will always be social problems, and there will always be a future recessions to plan for, there will not always be money available in the future to fix the problems that we do have money to now. None of that means that you shouldn't invest in your human capital and infrastructure with the money you do have now. We've paid $3.3B into the rainy day fund over the past three years. We're doing the fiscal responsibility part. The current surpluses are *on top of* fiscally responsible policy. Reasonable people can disagree, but intentionally reducing the states revenues through tax cuts and then passing that cost onto students who are already experiencing the brunt of a housing crisis is bordering on cruel. e - n't
one issue is committing a volatile income source (cap gains tax revenue) to expenses that aren’t volatile. Sure the markets been on the up, but one recession will blow a hole in that.
I mean, sure, there will always be an recession in the future, but that doesn't mean its a good idea to not invest in human capital and core infrastructure while you have the money to do so. Making more productive citizens pays for itself many times over in the long run, and infrastructure only gets more expensive to build and maintain.
But we do invest in these things. So, the disagreement isn't over whether we invest in these things, it's about where the arbitrary line is drawn for where we stop in order to balance other needs.
Paying down our pension debt faster arguably delivers a higher (and guaranteed) rate of return vs “investing in human capital”. Core infrastructure is a different story/assessment
Absurdity! There is some great and terrible injustice to rectify, a romantic vision to fulfill, and new state agency and/or non-profit to fund with public money. What fool would prioritize objective, realistic, and measureable solutions when grandiose aspirations are afoot?!?
I see no issue with taking any surplus over their projected goal and reinvesting in social programs. I also don't really see an issue in putting it all aside to pay some debt off since CT is the most debt burdened state in the US mostly due to a bloated and underfunded pension system.
[удалено]
I lean more towards that approach personally. I think the initial surplus goals were primarily to pay down debt anyway so why not pay more debt down and reinvest in growth. Not to say we can't also invest some of it in social programs, but CT is seriously lacking in economic growth, and without that nothing is going to be sustainable.
Reduce tax burdens in CT? Oh what a dream, we can only wish not to be taxed to death.
IMO would be foolish to not payoff our pension obligations as fast as possible. The faster we pay them off the faster we decrease our states annual debt service costs, which frees up cash flow for the budget and is actually recurring, unlike the volatile cap gains income democrats for some reason want to now label as steady income…
> reinvesting in social programs. Gotta be careful with that. Once you start a social program it's hard to shut it down when revenues decrease.
We were so bad with money for 40 years we literally had to write into our Bond Contracts that we will use the extra to pay down debt
Keep paying down the debts. Clean up the mess this generation. Our children deserve that.
CT needs a big cleanup of it wants the young people to stop leaving this state after college.
CT needs to build some damn apartments and denser SFHs if they want anybody to stay here. Seriously, look at the rents people are paying in East Hartford. That should be extremely cheap, and it is emphatically *not*.
Ikr it’s ridiculous! They allow permits for a thousand fucking luxury apartments, but not one for an affordable apartment complex smh !!!
*Every* new complex is always luxury. The affordable complexes are the ones left over after the new ones are built that have to drop rents to attract tenants, or renovate at considerable cost. We also aren't permitting new units at even a tenth the rate we should be. The reason we have such a lack of affordable housing is that multifamily construction ground to an absolute halt in the GFC.
If your scared move somewhere safer.
New Hampshire got that swagger and safety that beats CT
Yet you’re still here. Just talking
They need to pay down the state pension debt. Tax cuts are never coming until they do that. It's like $42B in debt.
We passed a tax cut this year.
De minimis tax cut. Basically a way to say we cut taxes without actually changing anyone’s life or attracting new employers with a more favorable tax climate
Just keep paying down the debt.
Use the money to help schools pay for special education. Fund the pensions programs Increase funding to towns so they can lower the mill rate as a whole.
Isnt that cute, you think they'd lower the mill rate if they got more. all they know how to do is spend. If they suddenly got more money they're have a meeting to discuss how to spend it.
As a West Hartford resident I can verify that this comment is spot on. They increased the mill rate on us again even though property values are already way up and they are benefitting from low inventory and high price assessments, essentially double dipping on sucking more money out of residents.
Use the money to solve the electricity problem
Upgrade millstone! God knows how old it is though that can be said with most US nuclear plants which are old.
They'll probably funnel more cash to CTInnovations lol Which for those unaware is CT's "public" investment company...... that legit has provided zero resources to homegrown CT companies 🫠🫢 oh and they have a mangement fee of 5% which is roughly 5x the industry average🫢🥳
For better or worse, servicing the pension debt is something like 10% of the state’s annual budget. Each dollar put in now permanently reduces that contribution, freeing up those dollars for other purposes. I’d rather the state clear that debt early & then refocus the money. Let’s get the lodestone off of our backs sooner rather than later.
Invest all surpluses into a Connecticut sovereign wealth fund and use the dividends to improve the state/ fund projects in the future. Like Norway https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tFyBMX2OO4Q&pp=ygUcbm9yd2F5IHNvdmVyZWlnbiB3ZWFsdGggZnVuZA%3D%3D
First, the surplus here is predominantly based on last years large run in asset prices, which isn’t something we should count on for revenues. More importantly $1B isn’t even a drop in the bucket. We have $55B in state debt plus another quarter trillion in unfunded liabilities. The politicians pretending this 1B is “extra” and should be spent are just digging the hole deeper for the next generation.
Permanent free school lunches. Now.
This is the case in districts with a higher poverty/low income rate. In Stamford its free (no application needed). Would be nice to see it rolled out state wide
Yeah today I’m supposed to call families that owe $200+ for school lunches. I’m dreading that call cuz it should be free
$200 is slightly more than $1/day.
Yeah, it does surprise me what prices can vary from town to town, where I work it's $1/day where I live they charge $3 for elementary meals
With all the damn taxes we pay I don’t know why this ain’t a damn thing already. Like seriously
Preach!
I don’t know. I’m for free food for poor kids, even expanding the program a bit up the economic ladder, but I make a very good living and both my kids get free food even though we don’t need it because of where they go to school. I’m happy to pay for it rather than making taxpayers feed my kids.
I get what your saying, but means-testing these things requires paperwork, paperwork requires people to read the paperwork, people to read the paperwork costs money that could be going to feed kids. Plus systems where kids know who's getting free lunches and who isn't creates all kinds of stigma that really isn't necessary. So, ya, you're not wrong, but let's just feed the kids.
> means-testing these things requires paperwork, paperwork requires people to read the paperwork, people to read the paperwork costs money that could be going to feed kids. That just means we have to weigh the bureaucratic cost vs the savings, not that we have to just reject it blindly. > Plus systems where kids know who's getting free lunches and who isn't creates all kinds of stigma that really isn't necessary. That can just be solved having all lunch prepaid or billed after the fact. In college each kid had a card that they swipe at the dining hall. > but let's just feed the kids. The context is talking about a kid who gets fed either way, so "let's just feed the kids" kid of misrepresents what is being discussed.
Right, programs and their implementation should be planned according to cost, effectiveness, efficiency, negative externalities, among many other considerations. Means testing [can reduce costs, but often at the expense of effectiveness](https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/means-testing-and-its-limits). I think in the case of CT – where means testing kids meals would involve coordination between the state government and 160+ municipalities that would now be expected to implement that means testing – the added saving would need to be balanced against the added administrative burden placed on town governments that are already severely understaffed. The literature on the [psychological damage to children](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/free-school-meals-stigma/) by shaming caused by means-testing food accessibility speaks for itself. So, ya, if means testing is going to make it more difficult, less efficient, and more psychologically damaging to feed already vulnerable children, then we should just. feed. the. kids. e - spelz and punctuation
We're not even necessarily talking means testing here. The context of this conversation is a person saying that they wouldn't opt for free lunches. If you did *no means testing* but simply made the program opt-in, that person would be able to get their way and save the school or state money. So, you're already jumping a little ahead by equating "free lunch for all" with means testing. And even in that process, it is a spectrum. Means testing doesn't necessarily have to be rigorous. > I think in the case of CT – where means testing kids meals would involve coordination between the state government and 160+ municipalities that would now be expected to implement that means testing There is nothing that says it needs to be implemented that inefficiently. There could be one single system. Heck, that system doesn't even have to be specific to meals. When you apply for medicaid or some other existing program, you can just be automatically opted in to free meals. > The literature on the psychological damage to children by shaming caused by means-testing food accessibility speaks for itself. The link you provide supports what I said which is that this psychological damage comes from visible cues of who is getting a free meal which go away if you simply have the paying not take place at school. Again, if every kid had access to the same exact meals and got those meals by swiping the same exact card, this psychological damage would go away, but you would retain the ability to have the funding for those cards be different based on the circumstance.
Your kid is getting screwed left and right by US taxpayers, his social mobility has been decimated these past few decades Free school lunch is the least taxpayers owe you
Permanent, HEALTHY, school lunches. They need to stop giving kids tortilla chips and cheese dip and thinking that's lunch.
The lunches are so wild here, some days they have 3 veggies/fruit options and an okay protein, some days they give 3 mozzarella sticks and no sides. I don’t get how they plan it
That’s the trick! There is no planning!
And how much does that cost?
The closest to healthy we had in school was this disgusting fake chicken Caesar salad and burnt ass sweet potato fries. We also had soggy ass baby carrots. Thanks Michelle
Yummy, fake children. Such memories.
Goddamnit lol
Yup. They’re doing it in Mass already.
lol and when this temporary money runs out? Just like with the temporary Covid relief funds they'll panic that they funded permanent things with a temporary inflow of money.
These are not temporary funds. >With the latest projections, the overall state budget surplus this fiscal year is projected to exceed $1 billion for [the fifth time in six years](https://osc.ct.gov/reports/), according to records from the state comptroller’s office. (In 2019-20, when the coronavirus first struck Connecticut, the state still finished a healthy [$569 million in the black](https://osc.ct.gov/reports/monthly/2020/Sept17LtrFY20.html).) And the numbers say two more $1 billion surpluses are achievable by 2026.
They’re temporary in that the market could crater tomorrow and a key source of funds for the state gvmt would be crushed for an unknown period of time
That's why I don't feed my kids now: I might be unemployed in the future.
If you couldn’t afford to feed your kids now, you could fill out the paperwork and the state will pay to feed them. That solution already exists lol
Woosh
That’s why you don’t compare a state budget to a household
There are so many great things we could do for social programs or infrastructure. Or figure out the disaster with eversource
Cut spending more. Pay down debt and fund pensions. Then cut income taxes.
Meanwhile Hartford schools executing massive layoffs
We should be lowering our taxes. The CT rate is 7% and most states it's 5%. I wish they'd talk about that.
> The state’s considerable pension debt also is considerable, totaling more than $37 billion entering this year, according to Lamont’s budget office. Leave it alone.
literally just wrote a paper for school about how they’re cutting $62m from education and how disastrous it’ll be lmao it’d nice if they put any of it towards that
"Things are going great, let's change what we're doing."
The democrats championing capital gains income as not volatile look so foolish - did they learn nothing from the 08-09 recession, or even from covid which required massive federal stimulus to prop up our economy and stock market? I really hope voters speak out in opposition. CT has made great strides towards tackling our pension debt but still has nearly $40bn to address. Imagine the new recurring available funds if we whittled that pension debt down and weren’t paying the corresponding interest expense? Maybe then we would actually have budget flexibility.
Pay the teachers
For real every time I got to waterbury they have billboards in abundance begging for teachers to apply. Not worth it though In that zipcode with the rude violent kids, poor pay, lack of support from the board, and much more.
Keep cost cutting and lower taxes
I’m sure it will be wasted in no time.
Cocaine and hookers for everyone!
Typical CT thinking. "Hey, we are boning the citizens out of a billion dollars we aren't entitled to. I've got a great idea, let's just spend it! Screw the peons!"
We need more public transportation bridging this state and its population centers together.
Use it subsidize dense mixed use developments in close proximity to high frequency transit like fast track and rail stations. This is sustainable growth and will spur a lot of private investment as well
They don’t need to subsidize these developments - private sector wants to spend around train stations, but town push back prevents them in many cases. Funny enough if you look at the real estate goldmine that is the empty fields surrounding New Haven Union Station - the city owns that land and should take the blame for it being a barren wasteland with no normal income apartments, offices, restaurants, shopping, coffee shops etc…just empty grass, trees and homeless activity next to one of the busiest train stations in the country smh
Also, Hartford has a weirdly huge number of empty parking lots that are just *begging* to be turned into new apartments or townhomes. Same with brownfield sites and dead malls in EH, although they seem actually serious about redeveloping those.
100% agree, same story around Bridgeport. Look out the window of the metro north as you pull into the station and it’s empty lot after empty lot
Bridgeport needs a lot of everything. A bit of new industrial development and nearby apartments would go a looooong way to helping that city.
I'd really rather the state use some of the money to put up whiteboard bullet proof rooms inside classrooms.
Cut taxes?
[удалено]
its for paying down pension debt
"rUn dA Gov'T lIKE A buSiNeSs" "WAIT NOT LIKE THAT!'"