[East of the River]

More and more Stefanowski seems to be putting an asterisk next to that income tax repeal issue. Which is odd because it's the only issue he will talk about publicly. So essentially we have no idea what he would do as governor. I don't really love the Oz position on tolls or delaying pension funding but he does seem to have actually policy ideas compared to the other 2.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by SAE72

" concessions" doesn't always mean the same thing. Lamont walks more of the tight rope because of the Union's financial links to Democrats . Stefanowski has proposed looking for legal methods regarding the actual agreements to explore the potential for rewrites . If the Courts ruled against the Unions, a potential scenario that Lamont has commented on previously regarding the new SCOTUS Justice , it could be a new ball game.


Should our emphasis be on getting money from out of state drivers or the lessening the taxation rate of current citizens ? The problem is that once the structures are installed, the systems up and running, there is a potential of being " nickeled and dimed " for eternity. Another dime here, another dime there. A Government taxation favorite. Direct withdrawal from the pockets of taxpayers.


Regarding the transportation issues, yes, there are many, but the repair and upkeep of the roads is the first and the most important priority. That should be addressed first and foremost, and any projects will have to wait. They are not a priority.
But I suppose we could ponder spending billions digging tunnels under Hartford , because for 2 1/2 hours a day people have to wait a little longer. Are you saying that Democrats would lower taxes ? Do you really believe that ? Their ideology and policies have done nothing but add to the cost of Government , what makes you think that would change now ?


Passing Legislation regarding drug legalization and increased state sponsored gambling have a potential cost to society that needs to be carefully analyzed and studied , not just adding it on because another state has done so. Is " revenue " that important ? And if it is, why stop there ? Why not look at Prostitution ? How about Cocaine ? Legalized Opiates ?


The seemingly endless search for new revenue ( almost always a tax ) is a consequence from increased spending. Cut the spending and the need for new revenue diminishes. Sources for new tax generated revenue should only be considered when all avenues of cost cutting and savings are implemented.


What always amazes be about the business of State Government is that it can be very financially rewarding to work for them, but if you DO work FOR them, they would love to get away with paying you 5 cents on the dollar profit.

Honestly CT's per capita state government spending isn't that out of line with most states. The big issue is the debt load behind it. Which is why unfortunately you can't cut revenue.

[RunD1987]

Originally Posted by East of the River

More and more Stefanowski seems to be putting an asterisk next to that income tax repeal issue. Which is odd because it's the only issue he will talk about publicly. So essentially we have no idea what he would do as governor. I don't really love the Oz position on tolls or delaying pension funding but he does seem to have actually policy ideas compared to the other 2.

Oz wants to try tolls out on HOV lanes during peak hours so non carpool people can use it

Not sure how that works I guess other States do it

Yeah Oz has some Red and Blue Political Views but CT voters are mostly purple

Only reason for delaying pension funding is to avoid towns in the State going in to crisis mode. Oz has a plan, do believe will stick with it, but the delay helps Oz work towards implementing that plan.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Uhhh... Stefanowski is saying union concessions too. Did you read what his plan is??? He says he will force the unions to the table again even though the unions have nothing to gain and a lot to lose if they sit with him before 2027 when their current contract ends.

Rhode Island already tried something similar, and the courts stuck it down. Rowland also did something similar and actually laid off state employees (against the contract) and that was also struck down by the courts years later. Most of those employees effected were made whole and in the end the state didn't save any money. (Most likely lost money)


Stefanowski needs to review recent history or at least have people around him that know recent history.
Early this morning about 6am Stefanowski was on 99.1 WPLR (chaz and aj) and apparently he has already back pedaled on his idea of "removing collective bargaining" for state employees. I only heard the tail end of this interview so maybe I heard it wrong. Perhaps the interview was replayed later and someone can verify.

Originally Posted by JayCT

Tolls would reach into the pockets of out of state drivers who use our roads for free now. What is wrong with that? I don't understand the Republican's opposition to this

I don't want to get too far into the weeds with accounting but in accounting there is a concept called
30/30/10 which means 30% material cost 30% labor cost 10% overhead cost. This amount equals COGS aka "cost of goods sold" which leaves 30% for gross profit. Out of gross profit a business has to pay expenses such as insurance, taxes, etc which then leads to "net income".


Even if we were too use "gross profit" as the margin the best the state can net from "out of state drivers" is 9%. That percentage is too small IMO and if our legislators want to toll the highways they need to sell it as more than "soaking out of staters" This is one reason I'm not on board with the tolls.


I get 9% by using 30% out of state drivers traffic x 30% of gross revenue. In reality the net will be much lower since "gross profit" is not a realistic margin. Most likely the "net" would be around 3% (from out of state drivers)

[BobNJ1960]

Race is tightening up!

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by CamonYallCTaintThatBad

Pension fixing ideas....

- Tier IV (employees hired after 07/01/17) should have been a defined contribution plan only . State should match at a percentage similar to private sector employees rather than a pension. Maybe enact a Tier IV-A or a Tier V with these benfits.
- Cap all pensions at $100,000. No higher no matter how much the Uconn President or Head Coach makes .
- Remove OT from all pensions. Pensions should be based on base salary only.
- Eliminate pensions for employees convicted of violent / financial crimes . Maybe even drug crimes ?
- All tiers should be able to contribute another 1% of salary toward the pension fund.
- Give raises only to those with positive performance evaluations.

Those are just some quick ideas but there does need to be some reform to help get out of this mess. And it's more than just the governor ... if Bob wins but it's a blue majority, he's going to have difficult time with this issue.

Amen.

And hold employees to the letter of the contract regarding objective performance measures like attendance, utilizing all disciplinary procedures.

[JayCT]

I know I am super critical of Bob Stefanowski and his proposed elimination of the state income tax but to be far, is Ned Lamont much better? Jay

https://ctmirror.org/2018/10/24/lamo...tions-deficit/

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I know I am super critical of Bob Stefanowski and his proposed elimination of the state income tax but to be far, is Ned Lamont much better? Jay

https://ctmirror.org/2018/10/24/lamo...tions-deficit/

Both of them leave something to be desired, but I will be voting for Bob. I’m utterly exhausted for our State after 8 long years of the Malloy administration, and fear Lamont would be a continuation of the constipation.

I find it ironic though we get to choose between Ned, who is a great grandson of a founding member of JP Morgan, who is a total trust-funder worth over $300 million, Phillips Exeter legacy alumn, Harvard legacy alumn, and whose only claim to fame is that he started up a college cable television station 25+ years ago with some of his trust fund money And who has a library at Harvard University named after his family. And we are being asked to believe that he’s all for the “common” man, when there is absolutely nothing “common” or normal about this man at all...
Fact is, he’s an entirely detached, removed, limousine liberal democrat, who personally never accomplished anything on his own. His wife on the other hand... she should probably be running in his stead

Versus Bob the product of Polish immigrants, who went through the CT public school system, was the first in his family to ever go to/graduate college, and pulled himself up by his bootstraps alone to become a very successful businessman on his own. He is the epitome of success story, but we are led to believe in this instance that he’s a pig of a republican out to destroy his own kind - the “common” man

World upside down..

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

Rhode Island already tried something similar, and the courts stuck it down. Rowland also did something similar and actually laid off state employees (against the contract) and that was also struck down by the courts years later. Most of those employees effected were made whole and in the end the state didn't save any money. (Most likely lost money)


Stefanowski needs to review recent history or at least have people around him that know recent history.
Early this morning about 6am Stefanowski was on 99.1 WPLR (chaz and aj) and apparently he has already back pedaled on his idea of "removing collective bargaining" for state employees. I only heard the tail end of this interview so maybe I heard it wrong. Perhaps the interview was replayed later and someone can verify.






I don't want to get too far into the weeds with accounting but in accounting there is a concept called
30/30/10 which means 30% material cost 30% labor cost 10% overhead cost. This amount equals COGS aka "cost of goods sold" which leaves 30% for gross profit. Out of gross profit a business has to pay expenses such as insurance, taxes, etc which then leads to "net income".


Even if we were too use "gross profit" as the margin the best the state can net from "out of state drivers" is 9%. That percentage is too small IMO and if our legislators want to toll the highways they need to sell it as more than "soaking out of staters" This is one reason I'm not on board with the tolls.


I get 9% by using 30% out of state drivers traffic x 30% of gross revenue. In reality the net will be much lower since "gross profit" is not a realistic margin. Most likely the "net" would be around 3% (from out of state drivers)

You are right about a Rhode Island and John Rowland’s failed attempts to break union contracts. Rowland notbonly had to reinstate th3 employees, he had to give them back pay. It cost the state millions.

I am not sure your toll n7mbers add up. Malloys toll study should answer a lo5 of questions. That said I doubt the return to the state would be so low. Why are other states so successful at implementing tolls? If they weren’t a good revenue source why are they being expand and not removed? Jay

[RunD1987]

https://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archive...y_for_griebel/

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-p...017-story.html

https://fox61.com/2018/09/30/the-rea...-oz-griebel-5/

https://www.ozforgovct.com/single-po...GAtOFLhJHwfSt8

https://www.ozforgovct.com/single-po...GAtOFLhJHwfSt8

https://www.ozforgovct.com/single-po...GAtOFLhJHwfSt8

https://www.ozforgovct.com/single-po...GAtOFLhJHwfSt8

These 2 Stories Say It All Why You Should Vote For Oz
None of the candidates understand issues affecting the State more than Oz and these two stories show it...

https://www.ozforgovct.com/single-po...-OPIOID-CRISIS

https://www.ozforgovct.com/single-po...GAtOFLhJHwfSt8