🔒Lamont shouldn’t be comforted by WSJ praise

Struggling sports teams often point to moral victories as signs of hope for the future.

For example, UConn’s football program, which is featured in this week’s issue, took solace last month in losing by just two points to a Big Ten-conference opponent, the University of Illinois.

Unfortunately, the team has struggled mightily since and is on its way to another losing season.

Gov. Ned Lamont also heralded a moral victory recently, praising a Wall Street Journal op-ed that didn’t actually criticize Connecticut’s economy or fiscal state.

The article, “States of Economic Comparison,” analyzed income-growth rates among states and linked them to economic and policy lessons.

At the end of the op-ed, WSJ’s editorial board briefly discussed Connecticut, giving Lamont a slight pat on the back for his efforts to turnaround the state.

“The Governor so far has kept his promise to businesses and high earners not to raise their taxes, and it’s encouraging that wages and salaries during the first two quarters of 2019 increased 4%, the same as in Massachusetts. The bad news is the state has dug a deep hole, but maybe it has stopped digging.”

Lamont jumped on the attention:

“The Wall Street Journal is right,” he said in a statement. “We are making the tough and necessary decisions to get our state moving again. This kind of endorsement shows that many around the country are taking notice of the new direction for Connecticut.”

Ironically, four days after the WSJ op-ed published, a series of Lamont-endorsed fee and tax increases went into effect, including on car trade-ins, digital purchases, prepared meals, e-cigarettes, short-term rentals and alcohol (not including beer).

The state’s minimum wage also increased to $11 per hour, one of the highest rates in the country.

It’s apparent the WSJ editorial board wasn’t fully informed about the budget signed into law earlier this year. While it did not increase income-tax rates it did contain more than $600 million in higher taxes and fees.

I’d hardly call that a new direction for Connecticut.

To be fair, Lamont inherited a fiscal quagmire, and needed to pass a budget that balanced a multibillion-dollar deficit. His two-year, $43.4 billion spending plan may have done that while also helping solidify the state’s rainy day fund.

That’s the good news.

But in terms of the state’s overall economic picture, things are mixed and I’d say we are far from a turnaround. And I don’t think Lamont has instilled a ton of confidence in the business community, despite his private-sector background.

The minimum-wage increase was frustrating to small businesses, but it pales in comparison to the anxiety created by the state’s new paid family medical leave program, which will eventually provide some of the richest benefits in the country.

Many business leaders I interact with continue to express trepidation about the state’s future. That’s also backed up by a recent Connecticut Business & Industry Association survey.

Of the 356 business executives who participated in the survey, just 11 percent said they expect the state’s economy to grow next year; 77 percent said paid family medical leave will negatively impact their business; 81 percent believe the state’s business climate is declining (a 20-point jump from last year); and 92 percent disapprove of lawmakers’ handling of the economy and job creation.

Democrats and Lamont could dismiss the CBIA as an arm of the Republican party but that would be a mistake. The message CBIA’s members send is far more important than any WSJ op-ed.