Gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley is finally being a bit more transparent about his policy agenda for the state, but the few extra details he has publicized in recent weeks doesn’t paint a stark contrast with his incumbent rival Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, particularly when it comes to economic development strategy.
In Foley’s recently released, nine-page “Plan for Restoring Pride and Prosperity in Connecticut” Foley outlines five major policy areas, including economic development and tax policy, both of which are major issues for the business community in this year’s election.
The first item on his economic development agenda: Direct state agencies to focus on supporting major growth industries including health care, biotechnology and advanced manufacturing. Foley said he’ll also reach out personally to targeted companies to convince them Connecticut is the place they should do business.
Neither points are groundbreaking policy ideas. In fact, they replicate what Malloy has already been doing since taking office.
Foley’s most specific proposals include eliminating the $250 business entity tax and reducing the sales tax by 0.5 percent. Both are good ideas, but they aren’t game-changing policies that will dramatically improve Connecticut’s business climate.
Most of Foley’s other policy initiatives are only etched in broad strokes, with the end goal of making Connecticut more business friendly. He, for example, wants to conduct a “red tape review” to eliminate regulations and paperwork that unnecessarily burden businesses. He also wants to order a comprehensive review of state government to make sure it is providing the “functions and services citizens need and expect, but not more.”
He also wants a comprehensive review of how our tax dollars are being spent to eliminate government waste.
Connecticut politicians love to order reviews and reports that examine existing policy; we’ve seen dozens of them commissioned by legislative leadership in recent years only to end up collecting dust on the shelves of the legislative office building. A political manifesto steeped in calls for new blue ribbon panels won’t fire up the electorate. If Foley is looking to position himself as a candidate with a grander vision of Connecticut’s future, he needs to better define policies that set him apart.
Recent comments that he will hold state spending flat for two years and not cut the state workforce to help balance a $1.4 billion projected deficit, also fail to distance Foley from Malloy.
In fairness, Foley’s tentative nature likely has as much to do about politics as it does policy. With polls showing the governor’s race in a near dead heat, Foley needs to capture every potential vote, which means he can’t alienate the 50,000 or so state employee workforce.
Campaigning on the promise to gut the size of state government might leave him a few thousand votes shy of victory, creating a déjà vu moment from the 2010 race.
On the campaign trail, Foley has brandished his business acumen as one of the chief reasons he would make a good governor, arguing his executive leadership skills and experience will allow him to manage state government more efficiently.
Malloy, on the other hand, is running on his record from the last four years.
Foley seems to be hoping that there are enough dissatisfied voters to make Malloy’s policies the central campaign focus, rather than his own.
