With the unveiling of Connecticut’s state budget this week, one thing is sure: There are now plenty of unhappy recipients of fewer state dollars. It’s also pretty sure that all those at the wrong end of the budgetary knife strongly believe theirs is the one and only entity that must retain its funding. It’s everyone else who’s squandering the state’s money, not them.
The Hartford Courant said in a recent editorial that state legislators should follow the proposal of Simsbury state Rep. Linda Schofield and reduce their own numbers. That will be a hard sell at the capital, though, won’t it? Can Connecticut voters really expect their elected officials to not only cut their salaries, but also eliminate some of their own seats? There aren’t many other jobs available in Connecticut at this moment in time, especially with the kind of benefits afforded legislators, as all residents of the state know.
That would make it a bitter pill for legislators. But taking on some of the fiscal pain themselves as they inflict it on others may soften the blows, or at least diminish their status as easy targets for the anger of their constituents. And as their options dwindle in finding ways to cut, it could be that sacrificing some of their own will become less distasteful. Other states have changed their bicameral legislative models, for instance, saving money while streamlining the legislative process. It could be that would work for Connecticut. Drastic? Maybe, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
There are no easy choices for Gov. Dannel Malloy and the Legislature as they attempt to hammer out a budget in the face of a $3.6 billion deficit. All those affected by cuts will be scrambling to lobby their causes with the state, explaining why theirs should be the cuts that are reversed. It could turn ugly as lawmakers try to agree upon necessities that cannot be cut and desires that can be cut.
Self-preservation should not be the motivation for our legislators as they proceed, however. The motivating force should be their charge of serving their constituents and not only maintaining but improving the condition of Connecticut. Everything should be on the table, subject to open and fair discussion, no matter how difficult, when the success or failure of the state is at stake.
And another sure thing? Everyone will have to share in the pain.
