[BobNJ1960]

Cara in Stamford in bad shape. Up to Half of staff to be terminated. Stock plummeted.

https://www.ctpost.com/business/arti...=rdctpbusiness

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Cara in Stamford in bad shape. Up to Half of staff to be terminated. Stock plummeted.

https://www.ctpost.com/business/arti...=rdctpbusiness

A lot of companies downsizing I wonder how AI will play role in CT economy within 5 years

[JayCT]

So fork the past seven years Connecticut’s budget has been governed by strict guidelines that have been called “Fiscal Guardrails”. It is why the state has seen record budget surpluses; why the state has a very full Rainy Day Fund; why the state has been able to make some $8 billion in advanced pension payments; and allowed for a significant tax cut this year.

This article does a great job of explaining it but also note that there is growing opinion that the state should loosen the reins on our budget and spend at least some of the surpluses. Do you agree?

https://ctmirror.org/2024/01/28/ct-b...s-legislature/

Personally I think it is way too soon to start spending more money needlessly. It’s great that we have been able to pay down our pension obligations. It’s led to tax cuts and that is a very good thing. We should keep it up.

[JayCT]

This is Part 2 of a three part series on the state’s fiscal constraints and whether they should be loosened. This part makes the claim that services are eroding and need to be improved. What do you think?

https://ctmirror.org/2024/01/29/ct-s...tate-pensions/

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

This is Part 2 of a three part series on the state’s fiscal constraints and whether they should be loosened. This part makes the claim that services are eroding and need to be improved. What do you think?

https://ctmirror.org/2024/01/29/ct-s...tate-pensions/

They should have been loosened long ago, but Lamont is not one to lead. He is a follower. It's nice to see improvement in the pension fund, but we need investment in energy assistance programs, plus public transit to name just two, also. The lack of investment now will harm the state in decades to come.

As a person, he is it appears decent unlike Malloy, but he will go down as a "so what, one of dozens in Ct" governor. Despite the fact with the large surplus, he could have been a true long term legacy transformative leader. He talks the talk, without walking the walk.

[JayCT]

Part 3 of the series discusses whether the Fiscal Guardrails puts state services in crisis. It notes that the agreement was to keep them in place until 2028 when pension obligations begin to lessen.

Would that be too late or are the Fiscal Guardrails just simply living within our means? It’s a tough but very important question that our legislators must answer. It will set the fiscal direction of the state for decades to come. Let’s hope that they pick the best direction.

https://ctmirror.org/2024/01/30/ct-f...ative-session/

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

They should have been loosened long ago, but Lamont is not one to lead. He is a follower. It's nice to see improvement in the pension fund, but we need investment in energy assistance programs, plus public transit to name just two, also. The lack of investment now will harm the state in decades to come.

As a person, he is it appears decent unlike Malloy, but he will go down as a "so what, one of dozens in Ct" governor. Despite the fact with the large surplus, he could have been a true long term legacy transformative leader. He talks the talk, without walking the walk.

I disagree. Connecticut for too long ignored its pension obligations. It was to the point that the state was suffering economically because of it.

The Fiscal Guardrails have allowed our state to implement income tax cuts. I believe we need to also cut and simplify our business taxes. That could result in economic development.

Furthermore, it is imperative that the state live within its means. I wouldn’t trust our politicians to do that willingly. Neither party has shown any fiscal restaint.

To me our state should stick by its 2028 commitment. That would be the most prudent and fiscally responsible option.

I also disagree with your opinion of Ned Lamont. He’s shown very strong leadership by sticking to the Fiscal Guardrails. A weaker Governor would have buckled to political pressure.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I also disagree with your opinion of Ned Lamont. He’s shown very strong leadership by sticking to the Fiscal Guardrails. A weaker Governor would have buckled to political pressure.

Correct, and a 13% whooping in the last elections shows a large portion of CT agrees with you. Lamont can do no wrong in the eyes of many. CT adores Lamont

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Part 3 of the series discusses whether the Fiscal Guardrails puts state services in crisis. It notes that the agreement was to keep them in place until 2028 when pension obligations begin to lessen.

Would that be too late or are the Fiscal Guardrails just simply living within our means? It’s a tough but very important question that our legislators must answer. It will set the fiscal direction of the state for decades to come. Let’s hope that they pick the best direction.

https://ctmirror.org/2024/01/30/ct-f...ative-session/

We are not making progress because we make pension promises that are harming the entire state population, as we do not invest in things critical to development. Lamont just goes along quietly. He is a puppet.

The pension is heading the right way, critical mass transit improvements are not. Imagine telling your boss "I'll have this corps earning back where it was in 2010 by 2038" as Lamont's 15 year rail run time improvements did." Substitute Lamonts promise to match 2010 run times 15 years from now. We are in year two of that cycle.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

We are not making progress because we make pension promises that are harming the entire state population, as we do not invest in things critical to development. Lamont just goes along quietly. He is a puppet.

Wait, so you are saying you want to cancel our pension obligations, going against legal agreements our state made decades ago, and putting thousands of vulnerable retirees in financial jeopardy so the state taxpayers can save a few bucks???

You can postulate all you want, but whether you like it or not the state has pension obligations to meet and no amount of speculating is going to change that. It’s easy to sit here in 2023 and point out mistakes made in hindsight. That changes nothing though. Any attempt to back off from them would lead to strong legal challenges that will never be won so why keep harping about it? It’s a fact that the state has to deal with.