It’s an awkward time in the Land of Steady Habits.
With President Obama’s State of the Union address behind us, the next great piece of political theater is Governor Malloy’s budget presentation Feb. 16. Like the down week ahead of the Super Bowl, this schedule means pundits have too much time on their hands and spend it trying to read tea leaves for clues. What emerges is speculation, often leaving the facts in the dust.
A recent Courant front page — “Malloy: No Increase In Budget” — tells the tale of low expectations. Or impaired hearing. Or both.
Connecticut’s new governor is talking about finding spending cuts to cover more than half the projected deficit of $3.7 billion.
Further, Malloy recently was forced to dispel the notion that state bankruptcy was on the table. First, it’s not legal and second it would kill the bond market for years to come, the governor reminded reporters. A better question might have been about the prospects for municipal insolvency during his tenure. That is legal; municipal bankruptcies do happen and Connecticut seems ripe; the buzzards are already circling and the municipal bond market is starting to react.
There also is the usual swirl of rumors and flat-out guesses about what tax loopholes might be plugged, which tax incentives might be stopped and which state agencies might be consolidated out of existence.
The governor has signaled he’ll eschew further borrowing and another round of early retirements; he’s heard Obama’s message that the feds won’t be offering further bailouts to the states; there will be some tax hikes; there will be shared pain as we try to extricate ourselves from a deep budget hole.
That set of facts narrows the range of possible solutions. But it seems likely that Malloy will follow Obama’s lead and suggest a radical restructuring of state government that will be the antithesis of steady habits. That’s good. Serious problems call for serious changes. Innovation is a virtue, even in state government.
All that remains is to see how Malloy apportions the pain. Luckily, in this one-party system, we won’t have to wait long to learn the answers. It’s a good thing: Only facts can slow down speculation.
A lose-lose at UConn
The dust-up over Robert Burton’s letter to UConn offers a rare window on a disaster at the intersection of money, ego and decision-making.
To be sure, UConn’s athletic department committed a cardinal sin in not maintaining communication with its largest donor during its search for a new football coach. It’s really not uncommon or unfair that a major donor demands to be heard in his perceived area of expertise as one return on his donation. To the extent that didn’t happen, shame on UConn.
However, the right to be heard doesn’t equate to a right to dictate. That’s where Burton falls into the realm of an unreasonable bully working a personal agenda. He’s no different than any special-interest that gains access to a political candidate with a big donation. Listening is a courtesy afforded supporters. But at the end of the day, only the person holding the title can balance all the competing interests and make the call that’s best. Sometimes that call will be different than what the supporter advised.
Some move on; others take their ball and go home in a very public way.
We make no judgment here on whether Paul Pasqualoni is the “right” hire. That’s a pure judgment call and the university’s athletic leadership made it. That’s their job. And it’s their job to draw the line clearly — yet sensitively — for donors like Burton. Not drawing that line early in the process set in motion all that followed. And the public relations train wreck that Burton triggered will leave everyone involved worse off for years to come.
