Sad State of Municipal Politics

Yesterday the state was hit with its first major snow storm of the season. As usual, the Hartford Courant, WTNH Channel 8 News and others (oddly enough though, not the New Haven Register...) were on the beat to report on the conditions of the storm. The first sentence of the Courant article says it all: "A heavy snowfall blanketed most of the state Thursday, shutting down stretches of the state's major thoroughfares, grounding airplanes and causing hundreds of traffic accidents." I sincerely hope you did not have to drive around yesterday. And if you did, I hope that you were able to get home safely, with relatively little cursing or stress-related hair loss.


I had the good fortune to drive through New Haven during the aftermath of the storm. The Elm City did not even begin to plow it's roadways until after the storm ended. By 3pm, many streets were still icy, slushy, slippery and dangerous. The winter mess left on Dixwell Avenue, Whalley Avenue, and other major thoroughfares tied up traffic and made travel almost impossible. No doubt it led to several accidents as well. Where were the plows? Where was the salt? Where was the city when it was needed to perform it's municipal functions?

What yesterday's storm showed, with ice crystal clarity, was how woefully unprepared for winter Connecticut's municipalities are. One of the major functions we have entrusted to our municipalities is the maintenance of our roadways. Now, it appears they are not able to carry out even that correctly. Why? Where was the equipment, the preparedness and the money to keep our right-of-ways safe and clear?

It brought to mind another rumor I heard about New Haven. Apparently, the tallest ladder in the city is only 11 stories. Meanwhile, there are at least 5 high-rise buildings taller than that in the city. As the recent blaze this week showed, a fire can happen anywhere in the city, at any time. What if it had been the Connecticut Financial Center (27 floors) or the Knights of Columbus Building (23 stories)? Would the city have been prepared to deal with that type of fire emergency? And knowing that its equipment was inadequate, wouldn't it make the purchase of fire fighting equipment its number one priority? I mean, fire protection is one of the primary and most basic functions of municipal government.

Fire protection, police services, roadway maintenance... these are vital municipal functions that directly affect people lives. Neglect of these duties results in property damage, bodily injury, and in some cases death. So why does it seem that New Have is ignoring these vital functions? It's not for lack of funds. New Haven's proposed FY2007-2008 total budget is $717.6 million. Not to mention the fact that my property taxes are over 4.2%. In fact I just paid the tax bill on my car, and it was not cheap. Plus, city taxes are figured into my monthly rent. Where are all of our tax dollars going?

The city is spending $39.8 million (5.5%) on Police Services. Another $32.7 million (4.6%) on Fire Protection. Public Works gets a mere $18.1 million (2.5%). Where does the rest go? A variety of other social services, Debt Service $57.7 million (8.0%), and of course Education, at a whopping $348.6 million (48.6%). Then, I find this story by Elizabeth Benton from Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007 in the New Haven Register.

"Officials laud citywide housing initiative: Over the last five years, $59.5 million has gone into building 321 housing units at 26 sites citywide, the last of which are currently under construction."

And remember the Elm City Resident Card? The one which allows illegal aliens to access city services... The list could go on and on. And I'm sure that your local town's budget is not much different.

The point is that our municipalities seems to be neglecting their most basic functions: Police, Fire, Roadway Maintenance... in favor of programs and initiatives designed more to get votes than to get results. These programs are creating a crushing tax burden on the Connecticut taxpayer, crowding out funding for vital municipal services and driving cities and towns into deeper and deeper debt. This isn't just irresponsible, it's dangerous. That extra $5 million the New Haven wants for education (a drop in the bucket) could be used to buy fire equipment, hire new police officers, pay for roadway maintenance, etc... Instead, the city of New Haven and other municipalities are trading the safety of residents' property and lives for political popularity. Our message to our leaders should be: Cut the pork and focus on priorities. It's amazing what a simple snow storm can reveal...

We Already Know What Kind of Woman Governor Rell Is...

There is a great story about Winston Churchill. At a dinner party one night, a drunk Churchill asked an attractive woman whether she would sleep with him for a million pounds. “Maybe,” the woman said coyly. “Would you sleep with me for one pound?” Churchill then asked. “Of course not, what kind of woman do you think I am?” the woman responded indignantly. “Madam, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are,” said Churchill, “now we’re just negotiating the price.”

I am reminded of this story as I watch Governor Rell haggle with Democrat lawmakers over how much money to spend in the latest State Budget.

According to a March 27th story in the Hartford Courant, the state education committee, led by the Democrats, rewrote the Governor's property tax cap/educational funding proposal. Speaking of the original plan, Senate President Pro Tem, Senator Don Williams (D) said, "We started out thinking [the Governor's Plan] was going to improve quality in education... Now it seems to be doing the opposite." In response to criticism, the Governor defiantly told the Democrats "If you don't like my plan, come together and let's work on something that we can all agree on."

Governor Rell's version would have spent $228 million, and included a state mandated 3% cap on annual property tax increases. The Democrat version will spend $198 million, and not include the property tax cap. The Democrat version will, however, require towns that accept the funding to spend a certain amount specifically "on education" based on how much money they already allocate to that purpose. The following chart published in the Hartford Courant illustrates the idea.

I continue to be amazed at how many lawmakers and state school employees maintain that they don't have enough money for education! We are budgeting millions at a state level, while towns in Connecticut are spending $7,500 to $16,000 per student! That's enough to send your child to a private school! At least one Connecticut lawmaker seems to understand though:

"Sen. Thomas Herlihy, a Simsbury Republican who represents Avon and other towns, said the bill provides hundreds of millions of dollars, but that the increased funding is "not necessarily going to increase performance" in the public schools."

So if the public schools are not lacking in funding, why do they continue to produce such poor results? Probably because our tax dollars are going to pay for administrators, specialists, and counselors who do little to contribute to the educational process. Perhaps also because public school curriculum has moved away from teaching the 3R's and towards politically correct liberal propaganda that teaches how terribly the European settlers treated the Indians, the horrors of global warming, sex education, dietary education, etc... Another reason may be the continued demands of teachers and school authorities that parents abdicate more and more or their rights, and allow the school system to raise their children.

Instead of shoving more public dollars into a system that does not work, the Governor should be advocating a change to the system. For example, the Governor could propose a state funding mechanism that is based on performance, not existing funding. Or, the Governor could propose a voucher system to give parents greater choice. She could also return to the idea of "home rule," removing all state control and letting local governments determine educational policy. If she is really bold, she could seek to abolish the teacher's unions. All of these actions would change the status quo and introduce greater competition and accountability into the system, which would work to improve it.

As a conservative, I am embarrassed that Governor Rell calls herself a Republican. She has proposed tax increases and expanded government services and power. Her budget is filled with feel good funding irrespective of results. The problem is that Governor Rell has already accepted the liberal premise: that government can solve all social problems if only given enough time and money. The major fight going on at the capital today is not ideological, but financial. We need leadership that will advance conservative principles of a limited government role, with minimal taxation. However, the argument today is not on whether more state money should be thrown at our problems, but on how much. So, we know what kind of woman the Governor is... she's a liberal statist. Now, we're just negotiating the price.

Thursday Theory: "Economic, Theoretical and Practical Weaknesses in Human Capital Theory"

In "Economics and American Education," Alan DeYoung examines the Human Capital Theory, which proposes that investments in education improve personal and national economic conditions. The point is that by investing in humans, through education and job training, there is a payoff in the overall economy. Human Capital Theory has been used by politicians, including Governor M. Jodi Rell, to support increased state spending on education. DeYoung first lays out the various arguments and analyses used to support the Human Capital Theory. DeYoung then details the methodological and theoretical problems with the theory.

“The economic origins of most contemporary school reform are based now more than ever on arguments that children as human resources are instrumental in the economic development process (120).”

DeYoung outlines three types of arguments relating to the economics of education:

• “Social Demand Approach” refers to the concerns voiced by citizens over the use of federal, state and local tax dollars to fund public education and the economic impact, both benefits and costs, that are associated (121).
• “Manpower-Requirements Approach” uses economic forecasting to guide educational planning.
• In Socialist Countries, economists predict which sectors will need workers and educational policy is adjusted to address those needs (121).
• In Non-Socialist Countries, economic predictions are used by private firms to create scholarships that encourage workers to move into the growing field. Forecasts are also used by the government to determine in which fields they will need to hire and train more teachers (121).
• “Rate of Return Analyses” focus on the economic returns to individuals and society as a function of their educational training (122). There are four general types of Rate of Return Analyses:
• Relationship Analysis Approach and Cash Value Approach: “Attempts to compare differences between large numbers of individuals with differing levels of formal schooling (122).” Makes a general argument that people with more education make more money. Therefore, giving everyone more education will increase salaries economy-wide.
• Cost-Benefit Approach: “Such analysis extends the cash value approach by also attempting to quantify how much financial cost is involved in extended educational preparation programs (123).” What are the opportunity costs of pursuing further education? For every dollar invested in the education system, what are the returns to the overall economy in productivity, market diversity, income...?
• Residual Approach: “Makes the claim that investments in public schooling are systematically linked to national economic productivity and economic growth (123).” After adjusting for other known economic factors, a “residual” amount of economic growth remains unexplained. Economists of this camp argue that the factor involved is worker skill (and education) level. Theodore Schultz calculated that $71 billion in workers’ wage increases cannot be explained by other factors, and is therefore the result of increased skills. Schultz argued that 44% of increases in workers’ wages are due to increased education. Edward Denison argued that “Over 27 percent of the aggregate increase in national income was explained by the educational upgrading of the total U.S. workforce (126).”

DeYoung then goes on to point out the methodological weaknesses in these arguments:

• “Observers like Thomas Green suggest, an inflation in educational credentials is just as likely to bring down the economic value of a high school or college diploma… According to Green, for example, obtaining a high school diploma now is an imperative, not to improve one’s economic position, but merely to survive the onslaught of continuing educational inflation (127-8).”
• “Even within various rate of return analyses there are vast differences between and among classes of educated workers (128).” Ex.: Women & Minorities; Teacher vs. Businessperson.
• “Other factors seem to play a significant role in returns to educational investment (128).” Ex.: Where you go to school, Will to learn, etc…
• “Most rate of return analyses contain an important element of guesswork and are therefore not as methodologically rigorous as they might appear (128).”

DeYoung also points out several theoretical weaknesses:

• Disregard of Curriculum Differences: Conservative critics claim curricula nationwide have been dumbed-down. How can current curriculum be accurately compared with 20 years ago? Moreover, what about difference between natural science and social science tracks? How can these be analyzed statistically?
• Inconsistency with Observed Trends: Falling economic productivity during the 1970s and 1980s coincided with rising educational attainments.
• Unknown Factors: What about the attitude towards work cultivated in schools? What about emphasis on seatwork vs. hands-on work?
• On-The-Job Training and Vocational Schools: These are not counted by human capital models because they can be “explained apart from the effects of formal education (131).”

Overall, DeYoung presents a very common sense and straightforward counterargument to the Human Capital Theory. He presents the assumptions of the theory clearly and returns some significant questions to supporters. Today's politicans should pay careful attention to the concerns raised by DeYoung, before they wantonly advocate more education funding.

DeYoung, A. J. (1989): Chapter 8: Economic, Theoretical and Practical Weaknesses in Human Capital Theory in Alan J. DeYoung, Economics and American Education, New York: Longman.

Alan J. DeYoung is a Professor of Education Policy at the University of Kentucky College of Education.

Mid-Week Cartoon: Gov. Rell and Education Funding

Weekly Poll Results - 2/24/2007

What do you think about Governor Rell's proposed budget?

Tax Increases? Heck No!
67% - 8 votes

I support more education funding, but I wish it could be done without raising taxes.
25% - 3 votes

Some new taxes will be necessary to meet state priorities.
0% - 0 votes

This budget rocks! Thanks Jodi!
6% - 1 vote

Don't Know/Need More Information
0% - 0 votes

Mid-Week Cartoon: Gov. Rell's Budget

Taxpayers to Governor: No New Taxes!

There's a lot of good news from the latest Quinnipiac University poll, regarding Governor M Jodi Rell's proposed budget and state income tax hike. The poll of over 1,000 registered Connecticut voters was conducted between February 9th and 12th. There is an estimated +/- 3 percentage point margin of error.

Good News Item 1:

According to the poll:

"...voters oppose 56 - 39 percent the Governor's proposal to raise the state income tax to pay for increased education spending. Democrats split 47 - 47 percent on the proposed tax hike, while Republicans oppose it 65 - 30 percent and independent voters oppose it 57 - 41 percent."

The following comment included in the release detail sums things up nicely:

"...said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D... 'Voters support the Governor's call for more spending on education. They just don't agree with her plan to pay for it by hiking the income tax. Interestingly, she gets more support for her income tax hike from Democrats than her own Republican Party members.'"

I have long said that Governor Rell is ideologically what Democrats were 20 years ago. Those Democrat supporters are most likely traditional Democrats, who voted for candidates like Truman and Kennedy back in the day. Although I can't say I agree that we need to spend more money on education, I am proud of Connecticut voters for standing on the right side of this issue and opposing the tax increase. I am especially proud of those 47% of Democrats that oppose the tax hike. Let's continue to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to keep the state economically vital and to keep down the cost of living in Connecticut by opposing these tax increases.

Good News Item 2:

As a story in the New Haven Register on the poll results reported:

"The proposal includes a plan to lower local property taxes, but voters appear skeptical they would come out ahead. The poll found 79 percent do not believe property taxes would drop, and only 12 percent think they would."

The poll release detail states:

"By a 79 - 12 percent margin, voters do not believe Rell's argument that increased state education spending will result in lower property taxes."

Once again, way to go Connecticut! I have always believed that Nutmeggers had the sense to regocnize when they were being sold a bill of goods. Kudos for having the common sense to recognize that cash starved town governments are not about to cut your property taxes just because they are getting more money from the State. There is still the issue of the inequitable Education Cost Sharing system, soon to be soaring MDC rates, and other State messes that will eat into town budgets, as well as local Boards of Education that just won't take "no" for an answer. If we want our property taxes lowered, we cannot depend on the General Assembly. All the State is going to do is take our tax money and give it to the towns. Will that reduce our taxes, or just move it from one pocket to another? Let's rally together to fight the income tax and then take the fight to our local Town Councils! If we want our property taxes lowered, we must demand that non-essential town administrators are fired and that school spending habits are examined so as to eliminate anything not relating the the 3 R's!

Other Encouraging News:

According to the poll release detail:

"Voters oppose 50 - 44 percent hiking state income taxes on just the wealthy to pay for increased education spending;

Voters support 48 - 41 percent eliminating the estate tax on estates worth more than $2 million;

Voters support 68 - 26 percent eliminating the local property tax on cars;

Voters support 48 - 42 percent eliminating the local property tax credit on the state income tax to pay for the elimination of the car tax."

The poll results show that when it comes to taxation, Connecticut voters are on the ball. They know that higher taxes will mean less take home pay, tighter personal budgets, and a weaker Connecticut economy. They want to protect the small job growth we have and don't want to risk sending the state into recession. The Capitalist spirit is still alive in America, and I am glad to say there is a glimmer of it here in the great State of Connecticut.

Yet despite popular opinion, state lawmakers may still vote to raise taxes anyway, and here's why: The Quinnipiac poll showed Governor Rell with an approval rating at 72% (her approval rating has never dropped below 70%). Governor Rell is in fact one of the most popular Governors of any state in history. As a result, the New Haven Register reports:

"Southern Connecticut State University political science professor Arthur Paulson said Rell is well-positioned to make unpopular proposals because she is so well-regarded and is seen as a moderate."

Essentially, this means Governor Rell feels she has some political capital to spend, and will do so during this budget season. Why? I do not believe there is anything sinister going on, other than perhaps a desire to tout how much money she has spent on education come re-election time. I think that Governor Rell has truly committed herself to addressing the educational problems in the State, and is determined to make what she views as the "tough choices" in order to solve them. It's just too bad that she thinks the solution is to dump more money into a broken system. Hopefully, public outcry will force state lawmakers to make the real tough choices and to prioritize state funding, cut non-essential administrators, remove agenda driven social programs, and eliminate as much pork from the budget as possible. It also wouldn't hurt to consider some new and innovate sources of state revenue.

Keep up the good work Connecticut! Let's stay strong and continue to fight on this important issue!