[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by JayCT

An interesting summary on where the candidates stand on the state's pension funding problems. Jay

https://www.ctpost.com/politics/arti...e-13323088.php

Lamont, a small business owner-turned investor, wants to use his labor union endorsements to coax them back to the negotiating table, and collaborate on a third major round of concessions since 2011.


Stefanowski, a consultant and former international corporate CEO, would demand union givebacks, threatening to take them to court to nullify the contracts.

Both of those sound like empty rhetoric to me. Why would someone with a signed public sector contract renegotiate the contract? All those workers and former workers are already vested in the pension plan they have. You can't set the flux capacitor in the DeLorean back in time. Even in the big muni bankruptcies, the cities were still on the hook for almost all the pension liability after all the court rulings.


When the contract is up, you abandon defined benefit pensions completely and change to a defined contribution model for any new money. You still have the unfunded pension liability hanging over you but it at least can't get bigger. The private sector did that in the 1980's.


As I always write, in blue states, the spending is largely going to social programs for the poor. Medicaid and K-12 education money targeted at the poor school districts. You either raise taxes to fund that big spending targeted at the bottom-20% or you slash that spending. Alabama caps per-person hospital spending at $3,500 per year. If you're poor and sick in Alabama, you die and all the hospitals in the poor areas close. Granny in the nursing home on Medicaid is out on the street when the state slashes Medicaid payments and the nursing home goes under. Blue states don't usually make those Red state choices.

[RoundTableKnight]

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.

[RunD1987]

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.

Soooo a vote for Oz & Monte



The State does really need to address some issues. Need to hire more employees due to being understaffed in certain departments, better fund certain departments like DMHAS & find alternative ways to fund State Agencies like excise tax on marijuana, implement for employees 5 years or less a 403 A & B, privatize benefits & increase employee contribution, raise pay depending on certain Counties or areas certain State Employees work in, and privatize & modernize various areas of the State Government

[JayCT]

More on Bob Stefanowski's plan to eliminate the state income tax. Now it appears he is saying it can be done only if certain other things happen first. These include things like an improved economy. Isn't our state already doing pretty well with a low unemployment rate and higher tax receipts? How much better can it get really? What happens when the next economic downturn hits (and it will hit sometime over the next 8 years)? Lots of unanswered questions and questionable assumptions. Jay

https://ctmirror.org/2018/10/24/stef...5dbf1-68207705

[SAE72]

It sounds like a rational approach, don't promise the world if you can't deliver. I do like his approach to the Pension funding , rather than Lamont seeking " union concessions ".




If elected , on Day One, Lamont will push for tolls ( reaching into working people's pockets ) , push to legalize marijuana ( more taxes levied . more potential health issues ) , and push to legalize sports betting ( I guess we need even more gambling , another " tax" on lower income residents ) .
Without a doubt, other taxes will follow.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by SAE72

It sounds like a rational approach, don't promise the world if you can't deliver. I do like his approach to the Pension funding , rather than Lamont seeking " union concessions ".




If elected , on Day One, Lamont will push for tolls ( reaching into working people's pockets ) , push to legalize marijuana ( more taxes levied . more potential health issues ) , and push to legalize sports betting ( I guess we need even more gambling , another " tax" on lower income residents ) .
Without a doubt, other taxes will follow.

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.

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. Every other state on the east coast has tolls which we must pay when we travel there. Could the toll proposal not include reductions in the gas and vehicle taxes? The Republicans are proposing NOTHING to fix our diminishing Transportation Fund finances. Do they really think that our transportation system is fine the way it is? I have contacted a number of Republican candidates and NONE have addressed this. I strongly believe that this is a significant enough issue that they should. Don't you?

Massachusetts has legalized recreational marijuana. Given we are such a small state, legalized marijuana is here, whether we like it or not. Why shouldn't Connecticut legalize it too and benefit from the revenue instead of letting Massachusetts get it all?

The same thing for legalized sports betting. Does it make sense to make people go out of state with their tax dollars to place a sports bet? Again, whether we like it or not, sports betting is here. Jay

[Lalalally]

Race tightens. Now a statistical tie. https://www.newstimes.com/politics/a...t-13329799.php

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by Lalalally

Race tightens. Now a statistical tie. https://www.newstimes.com/politics/a...t-13329799.php

A lot of undecideds still. And I don't understand how Oz is getting 8%, but it appears he's eating into Lamont's base.

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

A lot of undecideds still. And I don't understand how Oz is getting 8%, but it appears he's eating into Lamont's base.

I was surprised by the number of undecideds at this point as well.

[SAE72]

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.

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. Every other state on the east coast has tolls which we must pay when we travel there. Could the toll proposal not include reductions in the gas and vehicle taxes? The Republicans are proposing NOTHING to fix our diminishing Transportation Fund finances. Do they really think that our transportation system is fine the way it is? I have contacted a number of Republican candidates and NONE have addressed this. I strongly believe that this is a significant enough issue that they should. Don't you?

Massachusetts has legalized recreational marijuana. Given we are such a small state, legalized marijuana is here, whether we like it or not. Why shouldn't Connecticut legalize it too and benefit from the revenue instead of letting Massachusetts get it all?

The same thing for legalized sports betting. Does it make sense to make people go out of state with their tax dollars to place a sports bet? Again, whether we like it or not, sports betting is here. Jay

" 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.