The West Hartford School Board has proposed 1% and 1.25% salary increases for teachers over the next two years. These proposed increases are in addition to the “step” increases which guarantee incremental salary increases to teachers simply based on the number of years worked. Maybe giving teachers 1% and 1.25% salary increases over the next two years is fine. Perhaps giving them a guaranteed “step” increase is fine. But to give both is irresponsible and then claiming that they were tough during negotiations is disingenuous. Given the current “step” increases, the Board should have refused to accept anything but a 0% increase, and the Mayor should have chastised the teachers’ union for seeking additional salary increases during this current financial crisis. Amazingly, not only does Mayor Slifka support the proposed increases, but called them “an enormous gesture in recognition of the gravity of the times.” We strongly disagree with the Mayor and, surprisingly, so does the Courant!
The following is the December 13, 2008 Courant article entitled “Tough Contract Bargaining? West Hartford Teachers. New deal with school board still costly.”:
“West Hartford school board chairman Terry Schmitt characterizes the two-year agreement reached with the teachers union calling for a 1 percent raise in the first year and 1.25 percent in the second ‘a harbinger of the things to come, of what's going to be happening in town after town.’ Mayor Scott Slifka called the contract ‘an enormous gesture in recognition of the gravity of the times.’An outside observer could look at the contract and just as easily conclude that teachers will get more pay for less work.Yes, the raises are the lowest in recent memory. That's to be expected when the state is in an economic free-fall. And teachers will pay slightly more for their health care coverage.But about two-thirds of the union's 867 members will receive ‘step’ increases — above and beyond the two years of raises — according to their seniority. Nobody should be paid more for just showing up. And the new contract calls for teachers to work one less day each year over the next two school years.The district now has 184 instructional days, with at least 180 required by state law. The 2009-10 school year would be reduced to 183 days followed by 182 days in the 2010-11 year. That's going the wrong way.”
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
THE CHAIRMAN'S CORNER
With less than 30 days until Election Day, our candidates need your help!
Specifically, they need you to do one or all of the following:
1. Money, money, money! Joe Merritt, Joe Visconti, Chad Thompson and, of course, John McCain need money to help them get their messages out to voters. Please consider sending them donations. If you have already done so, please consider donating again. Every dollar counts!
2. Phone banking -- Theresa McGrath has a phone bank set up on Monday nights in West Hartford. She needs volunteers to make calls.
3. Door-to-door with the candidates. Theresa McGrath has specifically asked for help with this activity. And, I am sure the other candidates would also appreciate having someone to go door-to door with them.
4. Hold signs during rush hour at high traffic intersections in town.
5. Hold signs at polling locations on Election Day.
6. Make "get out the vote" phone calls on Election Day.
Please let us know as soon as possible how you would like to help.
Thanks,
Justin R. Clark
Chairman
Vote Neighborhood Schools. Vote Low Taxes. Vote Republican.
Specifically, they need you to do one or all of the following:
1. Money, money, money! Joe Merritt, Joe Visconti, Chad Thompson and, of course, John McCain need money to help them get their messages out to voters. Please consider sending them donations. If you have already done so, please consider donating again. Every dollar counts!
2. Phone banking -- Theresa McGrath has a phone bank set up on Monday nights in West Hartford. She needs volunteers to make calls.
3. Door-to-door with the candidates. Theresa McGrath has specifically asked for help with this activity. And, I am sure the other candidates would also appreciate having someone to go door-to door with them.
4. Hold signs during rush hour at high traffic intersections in town.
5. Hold signs at polling locations on Election Day.
6. Make "get out the vote" phone calls on Election Day.
Please let us know as soon as possible how you would like to help.
Thanks,
Justin R. Clark
Chairman
Vote Neighborhood Schools. Vote Low Taxes. Vote Republican.
Monday, September 15, 2008
WANT TO MAKE THE RICH PAY MORE TAXES? CUT THEIR TAX RATES.
There has been a lot of talk of late by the Democrats on the campaign trail about making the “rich pay their fair share of taxes.” As several articles of late have noted, however, something happened to this issue on the way to using it as an excuse to raise tax rates: since the 2003 Bush tax cuts, we have seen what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.
Rather than give a recap, I’ll quote the Wall Street Journal from the Review and Outlook section of their July 21, 2008 on-line edition. “[T]he top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.
“Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.
“We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are ‘new rich,’ not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.
“The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.
“This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.
“The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.
“This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise. . . . Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s. The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.
“If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.
The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and . . . IRS data provide[s] more powerful validation of that proposition.”
At the end of the day, we know the right answer to the question of how to increase tax revenue over time: low tax rates. Don’t let them tell you any different.
Vote Neighborhood Schools. Vote Low Taxes. Vote Republican.
Justin R. Clark - Chairman
West Hartford
Rather than give a recap, I’ll quote the Wall Street Journal from the Review and Outlook section of their July 21, 2008 on-line edition. “[T]he top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.
“Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.
“We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are ‘new rich,’ not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.
“The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.
“This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.
“The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.
“This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise. . . . Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s. The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.
“If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.
The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and . . . IRS data provide[s] more powerful validation of that proposition.”
At the end of the day, we know the right answer to the question of how to increase tax revenue over time: low tax rates. Don’t let them tell you any different.
Vote Neighborhood Schools. Vote Low Taxes. Vote Republican.
Justin R. Clark - Chairman
West Hartford
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
FIGHTING FOR YOU
Hi Everyone! Sorry for the long recess, but we here at the West Hartford GOP have had a very busy Summer fighting to keep leaf collection for our residents, fighting to keep local control of our neighborhood schools and fighting for responsible budgeting.
As we approach Labor Day, we are also approaching the traditional start of the Fall campaign. Up and down the ticket, we have great candidates who will do a great job representing West Hartford from the Registrar of Voter’s Office, to the General Assembly, to Congress and all the way to the White House.
Over the course of the next few weeks, check back here to read biographies of our candidates and let us know what you think.
Vote Neighborhood Schools. Vote Low Taxes. Vote Republican.
Justin R. Clark - Chairman
West Hartford
As we approach Labor Day, we are also approaching the traditional start of the Fall campaign. Up and down the ticket, we have great candidates who will do a great job representing West Hartford from the Registrar of Voter’s Office, to the General Assembly, to Congress and all the way to the White House.
Over the course of the next few weeks, check back here to read biographies of our candidates and let us know what you think.
Vote Neighborhood Schools. Vote Low Taxes. Vote Republican.
Justin R. Clark - Chairman
West Hartford
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
THE CHAIRMAN'S CORNER
BLAME GAME: PART DEUX
Here we go again! After a crushing rebuke at the polls on June 17, the Democrat majority on the town council pushed through another backbreaking tax hike on seniors and working families in town. Again, the Democrats blamed everyone but themselves for their bloated budget. The Democrat majority, led by Scott Slifka and Tim Brennan, again blamed the state for not providing enough education cost-sharing (ECS) funds, they again blamed the state for not providing property tax reform, and again blamed existing teacher’s union contracts for forcing an increase. I guess it is encouraging that last night Mr. Slifka, in looking to the unions for concessions, all but admitted that the Democrat majority gave too much away in labor contracts last year. I am sure his admission will make us all feel better as we are bagging our leaves next Fall.
As for property tax reform, let’s not forget what Mr. Slifka and Mr. Brennan mean by that: giving up control of our schools. There has been a lot of talk about the need for “property tax” reform, but what does it really mean? Basically, under any “reform” plan, the taxpayers of West Hartford would send more of their income, or property taxes, to the state to fund education. I can’t imagine that this would result in a good deal for West Hartford’s taxpayers or for our schools. Once we lose the ability to locally fund our schools, we lose our control over keeping our kids in neighborhood schools.
Anyway, the bottom line is that we’ve been down this road before and every year seems to bring a new excuse. I wonder what Mr. Slifka will blame a record tax increase on during the next budget season? Whatever it is, it won’t be himself or the Democratic Party.
Support Neighborhood Schools. Support Low Taxes. Support the GOP.
Justin R. Clark - Chairman
West Hartford
Here we go again! After a crushing rebuke at the polls on June 17, the Democrat majority on the town council pushed through another backbreaking tax hike on seniors and working families in town. Again, the Democrats blamed everyone but themselves for their bloated budget. The Democrat majority, led by Scott Slifka and Tim Brennan, again blamed the state for not providing enough education cost-sharing (ECS) funds, they again blamed the state for not providing property tax reform, and again blamed existing teacher’s union contracts for forcing an increase. I guess it is encouraging that last night Mr. Slifka, in looking to the unions for concessions, all but admitted that the Democrat majority gave too much away in labor contracts last year. I am sure his admission will make us all feel better as we are bagging our leaves next Fall.
As for property tax reform, let’s not forget what Mr. Slifka and Mr. Brennan mean by that: giving up control of our schools. There has been a lot of talk about the need for “property tax” reform, but what does it really mean? Basically, under any “reform” plan, the taxpayers of West Hartford would send more of their income, or property taxes, to the state to fund education. I can’t imagine that this would result in a good deal for West Hartford’s taxpayers or for our schools. Once we lose the ability to locally fund our schools, we lose our control over keeping our kids in neighborhood schools.
Anyway, the bottom line is that we’ve been down this road before and every year seems to bring a new excuse. I wonder what Mr. Slifka will blame a record tax increase on during the next budget season? Whatever it is, it won’t be himself or the Democratic Party.
Support Neighborhood Schools. Support Low Taxes. Support the GOP.
Justin R. Clark - Chairman
West Hartford
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
THE CHAIRMAN'S CORNER
The Town of West Hartford roundly rejected the Democrat-approved $215.9 million budget for 2008-09 in a referendum yesterday. With an astonishingly high voter turnout of almost 30 percent, voters rejected a record tax increase on seniors and working families by a nearly 2 to 1 margin. Leon Davidoff, the GOP leader on the council, best summed up the results when he said that “[w]e may be the minority voice on the council, but we are 100 percent in sync with the majority voice in the community."
Mayor Scott Slifka, blamed everyone but the Democrats for the failed budget. "West Hartford," Slifka said, "is starting to see the tangible effects of the state's failure to address an ongoing education cost-sharing shortfall, and property tax reform as a general matter. We're seeing that, even for a maintenance budget, our residents can't do it. Something will have to give."
This blame game has, unfortunately, become standard fare for the Democrats in town. They blame the state for not providing enough education cost-sharing (ECS) funds, they blame the state for not providing property tax reform, they blame revaluation and they blame existing teacher’s union contracts for forcing an increase in taxes. The funny part? The last time I checked the Democrats controlled the state legislature that is responsible for ECS and property tax reform, the Democrats decided to phase-in revaluation and the Democrats negotiated the contracts with the teacher’s unions. Oh, and don’t forget, the Democrats are responsible for a spending increase of more than $13 million this year. In other words, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
Now that West Hartford voters have joined the Republicans on the council in rejecting this year's bloated budget, maybe the Democrat majority on the council will finally stop making excuses and give the town a reasonable budget.
No more excuses.
Let us know what you think.
Justin Clark - Chairman
West Hartford
Mayor Scott Slifka, blamed everyone but the Democrats for the failed budget. "West Hartford," Slifka said, "is starting to see the tangible effects of the state's failure to address an ongoing education cost-sharing shortfall, and property tax reform as a general matter. We're seeing that, even for a maintenance budget, our residents can't do it. Something will have to give."
This blame game has, unfortunately, become standard fare for the Democrats in town. They blame the state for not providing enough education cost-sharing (ECS) funds, they blame the state for not providing property tax reform, they blame revaluation and they blame existing teacher’s union contracts for forcing an increase in taxes. The funny part? The last time I checked the Democrats controlled the state legislature that is responsible for ECS and property tax reform, the Democrats decided to phase-in revaluation and the Democrats negotiated the contracts with the teacher’s unions. Oh, and don’t forget, the Democrats are responsible for a spending increase of more than $13 million this year. In other words, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
Now that West Hartford voters have joined the Republicans on the council in rejecting this year's bloated budget, maybe the Democrat majority on the council will finally stop making excuses and give the town a reasonable budget.
No more excuses.
Let us know what you think.
Justin Clark - Chairman
West Hartford
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
THE CHAIRMAN'S CORNER
I read a fascinating column in the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries the other day that I wanted to share with all of you. The article is about a study done by Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco investment economist, and it takes the classical supply-side economic model of taxation and looks at it in a new light. In short, the study shows that regardless of the rate of taxation levied by government, people will only pay a certain percentage of their output in taxes. Over time, Americans, regardless of the rate at which they are taxed, will only pay, on average, 19.5% of the GDP to the government. This means that when people are taxed at too high a rate they will generally produce less and this will lead to a decrease in the tax base. This study has broad implications at the state and local levels because of the increasing mobility of tax paying families. In other words, because it is so easy to move across state, and particularly town, lines there is no incentive to stay in a high tax jurisdiction when you can enjoy the same level of income and keep more of it by moving. So, the next time policy makers think of increasing taxes by 7%, they might want to think about how many people will actually pay that rate. You can’t tax something that isn’t there, and if we keep up our current pace in West Hartford we may end up with no one left to pay the bills.
Let us know what you think.
Justin
Let us know what you think.
Justin
Thursday, May 22, 2008
THE CHAIRMAN'S CORNER
The West Hartford Republican Party is proud to announce that it has endorsed the following candidates for this November’s election:
Joe Visconti
1st Congressional District
www.viscontiforcongress.net
Joe Merritt
5th Senatorial District
merrittforsenate@aol.com
Chad Thompson
20th Assembly District
chadt910@aol.com
Theresa McGrath
19th Assembly District
www.mcgrath08.com
Tom Knox
18th Assembly District
knoxy@comcast.net
Elly Brazell
Registrar of Voters
Elly@westhartford.org
Please join me in congratulating our candidates. Feel free to contact them with any questions and to offer your support. Stay tuned for future updates and events.
Joe Visconti
1st Congressional District
www.viscontiforcongress.net
Joe Merritt
5th Senatorial District
merrittforsenate@aol.com
Chad Thompson
20th Assembly District
chadt910@aol.com
Theresa McGrath
19th Assembly District
www.mcgrath08.com
Tom Knox
18th Assembly District
knoxy@comcast.net
Elly Brazell
Registrar of Voters
Elly@westhartford.org
Please join me in congratulating our candidates. Feel free to contact them with any questions and to offer your support. Stay tuned for future updates and events.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
THE CHAIRMAN'S CORNER
On April 22, 2008, the Democrat majority on the town council approved a $215.9 million municipal budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year. This 7% increase in spending, a far cry from the “maintenance” budget proclaimed by the Democrats on the council, coincides with the second year of the so-called “phase-in” of revaluation and will drive the average property tax bill for West Hartford residents to over $7,000 per year. As a referendum becomes more likely, let’s hope the council shows restraint and discipline during its second pass at the budget. With that in mind, during this time of great economic uncertainty, the town should commit itself to ending the revaluation phase-in this year and pledge to keep any tax increase to below 3% for the 2008-09 budget. This would result in some net positives for the residents of West Hartford.
First, it would show a commitment to forward thinking principles of taxation that ensure businesses and people will continue to invest in our town. Keeping any tax increase to a rate below the historical rate of inflation sends a signal to taxpayers that they can continue to get ahead by living in West Hartford. Second, it would provide certainty to taxpayers that any tax increase blamed on revaluation is a thing of the past. Finally, it would allow the town to move into next year’s budget process with a clean slate and a clear picture of what our priorities will be next year and in years to come.
History and basic economics teach us that increased tax revenues do not come from simply raising the rate of taxation. Rather, increased tax revenues come from the hard work and investment of the people being taxed. If we want to ensure that this capital continues to flow into West Hartford, and ensure that our tax revenues continue to grow, we must demand that the town adopt a pro-growth budget this year, and every year. It’s in everyone’s best interests to do so. Not just for today, but also for our future.
Let us know what you think.
First, it would show a commitment to forward thinking principles of taxation that ensure businesses and people will continue to invest in our town. Keeping any tax increase to a rate below the historical rate of inflation sends a signal to taxpayers that they can continue to get ahead by living in West Hartford. Second, it would provide certainty to taxpayers that any tax increase blamed on revaluation is a thing of the past. Finally, it would allow the town to move into next year’s budget process with a clean slate and a clear picture of what our priorities will be next year and in years to come.
History and basic economics teach us that increased tax revenues do not come from simply raising the rate of taxation. Rather, increased tax revenues come from the hard work and investment of the people being taxed. If we want to ensure that this capital continues to flow into West Hartford, and ensure that our tax revenues continue to grow, we must demand that the town adopt a pro-growth budget this year, and every year. It’s in everyone’s best interests to do so. Not just for today, but also for our future.
Let us know what you think.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
THE CHAIRMAN'S CORNER
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Justin R. Clark, Chairman
West Hartford Republican Town Committee
(860) 655-8374
West Hartford GOP Urges Town Council to Adopt Pro-Growth Budgeting
West Hartford, CT – April 23, 2008 – The Democrat majority on the town council on Tuesday night, by a party line vote, approved a $215.9 million municipal budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year. Justin Clark, Chairman of the West Hartford Republican Town Committee, was concerned about the impact of this year's budget on all citizens of West Hartford, especially working families and senior citizens. "I think we all agree that education and quality services are vital to the continued success of our town," said Mr. Clark. "For far too long, some folks have misled the public into believing that we are faced with a stark choice between higher taxes and better schools on the one hand and lower taxes and poorer schools on the other. History and common-sense tell us otherwise." Laying out classical economic principles, Mr. Clark noted that "if you tax something at too high a rate, investors and homeowners will leave town, resulting in an erosion of the tax base and ultimately lower tax revenues. It's Economics 101." He added that "[i]n order to continue to provide the level of service that the citizens of West Hartford have come to expect, we need to enact pro-growth tax policies that encourage people to invest in this town. The Democrats certainly haven't done that tonight."
Contact:
Justin R. Clark, Chairman
West Hartford Republican Town Committee
(860) 655-8374
West Hartford GOP Urges Town Council to Adopt Pro-Growth Budgeting
West Hartford, CT – April 23, 2008 – The Democrat majority on the town council on Tuesday night, by a party line vote, approved a $215.9 million municipal budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year. Justin Clark, Chairman of the West Hartford Republican Town Committee, was concerned about the impact of this year's budget on all citizens of West Hartford, especially working families and senior citizens. "I think we all agree that education and quality services are vital to the continued success of our town," said Mr. Clark. "For far too long, some folks have misled the public into believing that we are faced with a stark choice between higher taxes and better schools on the one hand and lower taxes and poorer schools on the other. History and common-sense tell us otherwise." Laying out classical economic principles, Mr. Clark noted that "if you tax something at too high a rate, investors and homeowners will leave town, resulting in an erosion of the tax base and ultimately lower tax revenues. It's Economics 101." He added that "[i]n order to continue to provide the level of service that the citizens of West Hartford have come to expect, we need to enact pro-growth tax policies that encourage people to invest in this town. The Democrats certainly haven't done that tonight."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
