Now that Gov. Dannel P. Malloy stands on the brink of a union concession deal to overcome most of the state's budget deficit in the short term, his next challenge is to protect a $1 billion pool of money he wants to use to address longer-term financial problems.
Though the deal would nearly close the record-setting deficit Malloy inherited for the upcoming fiscal year--a gap that once stood at $3.67 billion--challenges remain that are equally if not more daunting. They include a maxed-out state credit card, a severely underfunded state employee pension program and a pending conversion to generally accepted accounting principles that will help keep the state from the fiscal gimmickry of the past.
So even as administration worked with unions to secure $2 billion in wage and benefit givebacks over two years, the governor and the General Assembly adopted a $40.1 million budget for the next two fiscal years that is designed to run an unprecedented $1 billion in the black. The question is whether he can hold onto it.
"You can already smell it in the building," Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, veteran co-chairwoman of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, said Friday. "People already want to use that [planned surplus] to bring back programs that have been cut. I think we need to rely on Governor Malloy to be strong about this, because legislative history shows this money could quickly become low-hanging fruit."
The tempting fruit Daily is talking about involves a $369 million General Fund surplus built into the $19.83 billion spending plan for the fiscal year that starts July 1, and a whopping $634 million cushion in the $20.29 billion plan for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
By comparison, the biennial budget adopted two years ago was designed to run $700,000 in the black in 2009-10, while the second year--the current budget--technically relied on more than $190 million carried forward from past surpluses just to remain in balance with no projected surplus.
And even when economic times were much better in the spring of 2007, the biennial plan adopted then designed a two-year surplus that totaled just under $8.5 million.
So how has Malloy justified a two-year budget that is supposed to finish with $1 billion left over?
The governor has said that if concession talks failed, he'd need $2 billion to get through the next two years. While specific details weren't released Friday, the tentative concession agreement Malloy announced is reportedly worth $1.6 billion.
But Malloy for the most part has defended the cushion by citing not the uncertainty of labor talks, but the future need to address other huge fiscal messes he inherited.
With over $19 billion in bonded debt, Connecticut ranks among the top three states in the nation in terms of debt per capita, and debt as a percentage of the taxpayers' personal income.
The state's received an actuarial report last November showing its employee pension fund in its worst shape since the state began saving for pension obligations in the mid-1980s. That account held less than 45 percent of the funds needed to meet its obligation to workers.
Further complicating matters, Connecticut shifted the pension contribution system in 1995 from a level-funded 30 year schedule to a backloaded system that will force dramatic increases over the next few decades. The required annual contribution is projected to grow by 50 percent by 2017, double by 2026 and triple by 2038.
And Malloy has pledged to begin transferring state finances to generally accepted accounting principles. That means following a series of common financial guidelines that emphasize transparency. Under GAAP, expenses must be promptly assigned to the year in which they were incurred. Similarly, revenues are counted in most situations in the year in which they were received.
Connecticut's finances, under GAAP rules, are somewhere between $1 billion and $1.5 billion in the red, a margin Malloy would presumably set the state on a schedule to close gradually over 10 or 15 years.
Taking those challenges into account, Malloy has argued, a $1 billion cushion could be put to good use in future years once the current budget is stabilized.
Earlier this spring the governor took a hard line, vowing that if concession talks didn't produce sufficient savings, he would make up the difference with cuts.
As late as last week, Malloy's budget office prepared nearly $1.7 billion in alternative spending cuts. Besides more than 4,700 layoffs - a move Malloy insists no longer is in the works - there also were deep cuts to social services and a host of other programs.
But he softened that approach somewhat Friday, conceding that the $400 million shortfall between his concessions savings target and the amount projected in the tentative deal could be covered by "a mix of additional spending cuts and existing budgeted revenues."
A former mayor of Stamford, Malloy also had frequently cited municipal aid reductions as a possibility if concession talks turned sour. He ruled nothing out Friday, but when asked if that might be one of the "additional spending cuts" he might seek from the legislature, the governor called it one of the "least favorite" options he would consider.
Former Democratic State Chairman John F. Droney said Friday that Malloy successfully campaigned on a pledge to address Connecticut's fiscal problems in a transparent and honest manner with an emphasis on long-term solutions, not short-term gimmicks. He has maintained that approach since taking office in January, Droney said.
"He has gone around this state and put his reputation on the line, projecting himself - correctly - as a person who is facing reality," Droney said, adding he doesn't believe Malloy will deviate from his fiscal plans now to avoid friction with his fellow Democrats in the legislature over the need for more spending cuts.
"He doesn't want to handicap himself or get a black eye," if the economy slips and those other fiscal challenges remain unaddressed over the next three years, Droney added.
Malloy also could face pressure from minority Republicans, who object already have blasted the governor for signing nearly $1.47 billion in state tax hikes into law, and another $50 million in additional taxing powers for cities and towns.
The governor said he won't raise taxes any further to make up for concession differential, but House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, R-Norwalk, said Malloy needs to think about disassembling that built-in surplus and using those dollars to cancel some of the tax hikes.
"What I'm hearing from the public is, he hasn't cut spending enough," Cafero said. "How can you turn to the most overtaxed population in America and say you haven't suffered enough--that's part of the anger we're hearing out there every day."
They need to keep the cushion in the budget. The economy runs on consumer spending and the ct consumer will be taking a beating the next two years. The income tax and sales tax may not produce the expected revenue.
This clown is a total joke and has lost his credibility. No corporation on earth can be in the debt that it is in and not have any layoffs. The Connecticut taxpayers are going to be stuck with this bill. This is Rowland's and Rell's budgets on steroids. I strongly suggest that every private sector taxpayer in this state pack your bags and move quickly as fast as you can. If you have followed my blogs in the past, Malloy blinked and the Unions won. This clown is out in 4 years.
Get The ERIP out there and downsize the most senior workers. This is a Horrible Deal for all Tier 2 and Tier 2 A and tier 1. But Let's see the details.
STATE WORKERS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN BACK FURLOUGH DAYS, BUT HEY YOU WERE NOT ASKED,RIGHT??
Keep the contract that you have until 2017 Keep your medical & raises, In 2017 every teir will go up 3 years in retirement age?
Tier 2 just think ........ you may not want to stay past 60 and you have 25 year of service ......well guess what you will be penalized
Read MorePatrick, Under a golden handshake, what type of a scheme do you invision that a pre-62 year old, Tier II, employee would need, to make it worthwhile to retire? A 59 y.o. with 25 years, Tier II employee would only have would only have 38% to survive on, with the usual 3 chips added. As for you older state employees, it's in your best interest to vote "NO" to the concessions (unless you don't mind delaying your retirement).
Patrick, an ERIP only puts more pressure on a currently under funded state pension fund. The only people that retire on ERIP's are those people that are considering retirement anyway. The anticipated changes in post retirement benefits will motivate eligible employees to retire anyway.
Patrick is obviously a 57 year old, Tier 2 State Employee. This Baby-Boomer generation is the first in USA history unwilling to leave our children's generation a better life than we have. It's all about us Pat!
Most of us boomers are not like Patrick. If someone is under 30 ct will probably not be the best place to live. The tax increases that were voted into place this year will hurt the elderly and young families. I'm confident my children will have a better life than me. It is unfortunate that you feel your children will not.
Patrick I believe Malloy will go through with the layoffs. Retirement incentives are one of the reasons the pension fund is in trouble and that the younger state workers will never get their pensions. You should have taken the last incentive. The gravy train is gone. Remember the legislature is part of the pension plan getting 4,700 people out of the plan will help them.
Probably the best article on this mess I've read yet.
Layoffs were never taken seriously. They were an idle threat made for public consumption. But knew that.
Nothing structural has been changed in state government. Nothing.
Just more taxes. Increased spending. And a layoff freeze for 5 years.
We are such fools for putting up with this.
Our only hope is for the state workers to reject the deal, Hey listen state workers who did not get a pink slip! Why should you carry those younger workers, you worked REAL hard for
Read MoreI think that Patrick has made several valid points. He's not greedy, he just wants what he honestly worked for. BobC is right on. The older Tier II employees get the worse of the concessions. To save the newbies, I must either accept $100- $200 less, monthly, in pension or work at least 3 years additional to make it up, coupled with much higher retirement health care costs, much more than what Tier I pays. My pension is already easily $150-$200 less, monthly, from previous givebacks. At least the younger people have the luxury of time to take a new
Read MoreEven with all the secrecy it's getting obvious this is a BAD deal for workers. Another watering down of their benefits.
It's also a BAD deal for taxpayers.
I know this is why there's so much secrecy in this settlement. If it was such a GREAT deal for either side, we'd have heard something over the weekend.
I can't see Labor approving this but what's worse, is Dan's rescinding the layoffs which will put the whole process back at square one when the "tentative" agreement gets shot down.
Stay tuned for Round 2!
It sounds like the union will be voting for plan b. Does anyone no when the vote is scheduled? I feel bad for people who will be layed off. There are not many jobs out there. Also I would not want to be a former state worker going on a private sector job interview after the union tells the ct citizens to stick it.
What a mess
Don't gauge the vote on these forum comments. I am in 1199 and work for a large State agency. The overwhelming consensus is that people will be voting yes in droves. I have talked to dozens and dozens of people and exactly 1 will be voting no. People are generally very happy with the no layoff clause and the extension of the 2017 agreement to 2022. Those two provisions alone outweigh any givebacks.
Helen that is good to hear. I have been surprised by the negative comments as 4 years of job security seems like a super deal. People in the private sector would jump at an offer like that.
Helen, the people you've been talking to must be newbies that would have a direct impact from the layoffs.
Anyone with any amount of appreciable time under their belts I'm sure are pretty upset with having to work 3 additional years and potentially have another increase to healthcare like two years back.
Talk to your 1199 members on the HD retirement, see what they say when they have to work an additional FIVE years. I'm sure they're overjoyed!
Larry Cafero has the right take on this:
"[Malloy] hasn't cut spending enough. How can you turn to the most overtaxed population in America and say you haven't suffered enough--that's part of the anger we're hearing out there every day."
Whiskey Why do you feel that you should not pay more for healthcare? Who do you think should be paying for you.
No raises for 10 years.
The concession detail isn't good for most. The package is an excellent deal for workers in the Tier I and II plans that have been with the state for a long time. It is a bad deal for workers with less than 20 years and a terrible deal for new hires. The old story of the unions eating their young.
Essentially the 0/0/3/3/3 pay raises are wiped out by having to pay for retiree healthcare benefits at the rate of 3% staring in year 3 for 10 years. Smaller amounts in year 1 &
Read MoreYeah, this recession really SUCKS, doesn't it?
Does it make a difference? It is what it is, and no amount of wishful or magical thinking will change fiscal reality. The new SEBAC agreement SO far looks like the best possible outcome given the crappy economic situation.