The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website:  http://ctact.org/
email:  fctopresident@ctact.org

860-524-6501

April 3, 2006

 

 

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds

from the rich by promising to protect each from the other. Oscar Ameringer

 

 

 

WELCOME TO THE 71^st    EDITION OF 

 

 

  TAX TALK

 

 

***********

 

OUT AND ABOUT

 

From Susan Kniep:  As the President of FCTO, I have the opportunity to visit communities and speak with concerned taxpayers. 

 

On Tuesday, April 4, I will be a guest on the "The Bottom Line" Cable Show, hosted by former Rocky Hill Mayor and current Councilwoman Barbara Surwilo. We will be discussing the burden of property taxes on homeowners.  The call-in program will air on Cox Channel 15, at 7 p.m. in Rocky Hill, Wethersfield, Newington, Manchester, South Windsor and Glastonbury.  The number to call is  257-7488.

On April 6, I will be filming a show for an upcoming cable show in West Hartford. 

On April 21, at 7:00 p.m, I  will be participating in a Forum sponsored by the The Avon Taxpayers Association and The Farmington Taxpayers Association regarding The Disparity Between the Wages, Pensions and Healthcare Benefits of At-will Private Sector Employees and Government Sector Unions  at the Avon Senior Center.   Also participating will be Dowd Muska of the Yankee Institute.

 

Last week, I was a guest speaker at the public forum sponsored by the West Hartford Taxpayers Association. I had the opportunity to bring FCTO’s message regarding the high costs associated with Binding Arbitration and Prevailing Wage. 

 

This past Saturday, I attended and spoke at the 20 Year Celebration of the Bethel Action Committee in the morning.  This event was well attended and its apparent that Billy Michaels and Matt Paulsen are doing something right by all the accolades they received.   In the afternoon I traveled to Waterbury to meet with concerned property owners throughout the State regarding State financed group homes managed by non profits.  Of concern is that these group homes are established with no prior notification to the town or abutting property owners and there is no requirement for local zoning approval.     This is a subject which FCTO will be addressing as it relates to the rights of property owners and the costs associated with the State and private partnerships purchasing property and managing these group homes.  More recently, a State plan to purchase one group home at a cost of $1 million tax dollars to house 6 people drew the interest of State auditors who on March 29, 2006 concluded in their multi page finding that the bid was tainted and that “the winning not-for-profit should not have received the award….”  FCTO will be addressing this issue.  If you or your community have been similarly impacted, please contact me at fctopresident@aol.com .

 

 

***********

 

Governor Rell Announces $26.5 Million

in Priority Transportation Projects for 2006

$12.5 million dedicated for I-95 corridor; 23 new buses to be purchased

http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?A=2425&Q=311500

 

***********

 

The following is the Resolution passed by Branford’s Representative Town Meeting regarding the loophole in the Connecticut binding arbitration law for school employees that allows  Teachers’ and/or School Administrators’ contracts to take effect without the approval of town legislative bodies.   We extend our appreciation to Frank Twohill and all those affiliated with Branford’s government for sharing this Resolution with us.  All concerned taxpayers within the 169 Connecticut towns should encourage similar Resolution be passed by their local legislative bodies.  Susan Kniep

 

Frank Twohill, Branford, franktwohill@hotmail.com

Branford R.T.M. Passes Binding Arbitration Resolution, 26-1

April 3, 2006

 

This Bi-Partisan Resolution from the Branford RTM was sent to State Senator Edward Meyer, 12th District; State Representative Patricia Widlitz, 98th District; State Representative Peter Panaroni, 1O2 District, and Members of the Connecticut General Assembly’s House and Senate Education Committees.

 

 

 

BRANFORD RESOLUTION:

 

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: To Close a loophole in the Connecticut binding arbitration law for school employees that allows more than 50% of Teachers’ and/or School Administrators’ contracts to take effect without the approval of town legislative bodies such as the Branford RTM.

 

 

WHEREAS, a special session of the RTM meeting on January 3, 2006, considered and then rejected a proposed contract agreement made between the Branford Board of Education, (BOE) and the Branford Administrators Organization, (BAO);

WHEREAS, the RTM rejection triggered an automatic arbitration process mandated by the Teacher Negotiation Act (TNA), Connecticut General Statutes, Section 10-153(c);

WHEREAS, the BOE and BAO avoided a more costly full-scale procedure known as True Arbitration by quickly reaching an agreement between themselves that resulted in a contract settlement known as a Stipulated Arbitration Award;

WHEREAS, according to the Teacher Negotiation Act — that also applies to school administrators—such Stipulated Arbitration Awards take effect without returning to the town legislative body for review and action;

WHEREAS, we as RTM members, are the elected representatives of the cftizens of Branford and have the duty and obligation to review and vote on education contracts so that taxpayers are not forced to pay for agreements that their elected representatives have neither considered, nor approved;

WHEREAS, the General Assembly’s Legislative Programs Review and Investigations Committee found that more than 50% of education contracts now slide through this loophole, and recommended on January 19, 2006 that the Teacher Negotiation Act be amended to require that fully stipulated awards be considered negotiated agreements and sent back to the local legislative body for review and action;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Branford RTM implores our elected representatives in the Connecticut General Assembly to enact effective legislation that closes this loophole forthwith.

Respectfully Submitted,

The Representative Town Meeting

Town of Branford, Connecticut

March 8, 2006

James Bruno, Moderator

Dennis T. Flanigan, Clerk

 

***********

 

Spending plan divides, by Christine Stuart of ctnewjunkie.com

March 30, 2006 11:19:58 pm, Categories: State Capitol,

Subtle philosophical differences emerged between the two parties today when the Democrat-controlled Appropriations Committee released its $16.16 billion spending proposal.  Appropriations Committee Co-Chair, state Rep. Denise Merrill, D-Mansfield, said the spending proposal represents a 7.3 percent increase in spending over last year's budget. Gov. M. Jodi Rell proposed a 16.05 million budget. Merrill attributed most of the increase to the use of surplus dedicated to a proposed $245.6 million increase in the Teacher's Retirement Fund.  Continued at this website ….. http://ctnewsjunkie.com/index.php/2006/03/30/spending_plan_divides

 

***********

 

Read what some states and municipalities are doing to offset local property taxes.  Of course we all realize that true tax reform can only be realized when effective cost controls are implemented and State mandates are reformed or eliminated.

 

LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX (LOST)

 

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/lbloptax.htm

http://www.revenue.state.ne.us/question/newsales.htm

http://www.co.escambia.fl.us/departments/public_info_commun/LocalOptionSalesTax.php

http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/sales/index.html

http://www.state.ia.us/tax/educate/localoption.html

http://www.state.tn.us/revenue/tntaxes/salesanduse.htm

 

 

***********

 

Visit the National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

http://www.ntu.org/main/

 

NTU Rates Congress!  How does your Congressman rate?

http://www.ntu.org/main/misc.php?MiscID=13

 

***********

 

 

Arthur Landry, ALandry@cfund.org

Wilton, CT

March 20, 2006

 

Susan here are the figures- we put 10,000 a year into each teachers retirement- they put 5000(which they just offset from not paying social security) It is disingenuous for the teacher’s union to lament in advertisements that they don't get Social Security and must survive solely on a teachers pension.  A teacher contributes about 9 % of their pay to get an average pension which is now $36,000, but going up rapidly to $45,000 plus as their percentage of last years pay (75%) is  applied to the new top pay of $60 to 65,000.  This can be received after  37.5 years of teaching..  Social Security  recipients pay almost as much (7.7%) but get a maximum of about $24,636 at age 67; the average annual Security payout is about $17,000.  The main reason is the much higher payout ($45,000 average vs. $24,000  maximum) that can only be sustained by large transfers from taxpayers to  the pension fund.  While an employer(or self employed) must double(or match) the 7.7% Social Security, the taxpayer(as employer) must match 2:1 the teacher’s contribution to the fund to accommodate such a rich payout at a  relatively early age.  Our state budgets or $281 million a year for teacher pension; with the additional 246.2 million of the current state surplus proposed to supplement that amount.  The total amount of $527 million is about $10,000 annually per teacher in addition to their pay.  Since their pay  averages about $56000, at 9% a teacher contributes about $5,000 annually compared to the taxpayers $10,000; about a 2:1 ratio..  This is the main reason current teacher pension are about double the Federal Statutory Maximum of $24,636 for Social Security  In fact the maximum pension guaranteed by the government(for an airplane pilot, as an example) is $45,612 which is near the AVERAGE pension a teacher gets.  The reason this has not been funded is that to do it would bust the budget- as it is even with the proposed plan any surplus in our lifetime must be comitted to the teacher surplus under this plan.  If there is a deficit we are really behind the 8 Ball.  It would also cause an outrage among taxpayers if the facts were easily known that they as employers are committing to double the match that they are receiving. Now that IBM, GE, Verizon and almost every other  employer has dropped  pension plans, the taxpayer will really be outraged  to find that they  have been comitted(duped?) to fund a secure, rich, and early retirement plan   that they are unable to provide themselves and their families.    

 

In case you are wondering how this effects the job and economic situation in Connecticut,  here is what Pitney Bowes CEO Critelli says about it(in little covered speech at Sacred Heart University last fall).  One thing the Pitney Bowes' leader is concerned about nationally is the heavy retirement benefit obligation building at companies, but more importantly in the government sector. Critelli said most of the public doesn't know about the "astronomical obligations" local, state and federal governments have incurred and that they will soon have to start accounting for in the next few years.   "I think politicians and elected officials have found it easier to give away long-term benefits and hold the line on salaries because the long-term benefit cost hasn't been visible for the citizens. That's going to become visible and it's going to be a shockingly big number," Critelli said

 

On a brighter note, I was privileged to have Mike Guarco and Richard Burke from CMCFR down to meet our mayor, our Board of Finance, our Board of Education, and our Board of Aldermen.  They did an outstanding job and I hope that everybody in a position to do the legwork and set the table for their own town takes advantage of their expertise and commitment.

 

 ***********

Kathleen Mitchell , Orkenizer44@aol.com ,  of New London has done it again.  In addition to her quotes noted at the top of Tax Talk and the following – she has been providing us with a wealth of sources for news and facts. Just click on…   Reference, Facts, News ... Free and Family-friendly Resources   and    BNA's Web Watch

 

Do you have a favorite website you would like to share?

 

***********

 

 

IRS plans to allow preparers to sell data; Critics said the proposed regulation could lead to a loss of privacy for clients.

By Jeff Gelles, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer

The IRS is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable privacy of federal income-tax returns. If it succeeds, accountants and other tax-return preparers will be able to sell information from individual returns - or even entire returns - to marketers and data brokers.  The change is raising alarm among consumer and privacy-rights advocates. It was included in a set of proposed rules that the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Dec. 8 Federal Register, where the official notice labeled them "not a significant regulatory action."    IRS officials portray the changes as housecleaning to update outmoded regulations adopted before it began accepting returns electronically. The proposed rules, which would become effective 30 days after a final version is published, would require a tax preparer to obtain written consent before selling tax information.   Click here for full report   The Philadelphia Inquirer

     

***********

From the National Taxpayers Union

Study: Congress's Legislation Showed Trickle of Effort to Slow Spending before Post-Katrina Budget Deluge  http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=822&org_name=NTUF

Reply to:  notice-reply-in6g5sx41jn6bxe@ga1.org, March 10, 2006
For Further Information, Contact: Demian Brady  (703) 683-5700

 (Alexandria, VA) – March 10, 2006 Are there a few drops of hope left for reducing the federal deficit in the 109^th Congress, or have the floodgates of spending been thrown open for good? Many unique answers to this question are found in the latest Bill Tally study from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF).

BillTally is a unique cost accounting system that computes a "net annual agenda" for each Member of Congress (and has done so since 1991). The results are based on each Senator's or Representative's individual sponsorship or cosponsorship of pending legislation, and provide an in-depth look at the fiscal behavior of lawmakers, free from the influence of committees, party leaders, and rules surrounding floor votes. All cost estimates for bills are obtained from third-party sources or are calculated from neutral data. Within the first seven months of the 109^th Congress, NTUF identified 1,059 House and Senate bills with a budget impact of plus or minus $1 million. Highlights of the study include:

• Through the 2005 August recess, over 21 bills in the House were introduced to raise spending for every bill to lower spending. This is actually an improvement from the previous Congress (2003), during which the ratio was 23 to 1. In the Senate, 30 spending-hike bills were introduced for every spending-cut bill, worse than the 22 to 1 ratio in 2003.
• The average House Republican's wish list would increase federal spending by a net $11.0 billion, half of what he or she proposed in 2003 but still a far cry from 1995's average of minus $18.2 billion. The typical GOP Senator advocated a $5.1 billion agenda, roughly one-fifth of what he or she sought in spending hikes during the opening of 2003.
• The average House Democrat had a $444.7 billion agenda, the highest of any of the past seven Congresses. Senate Democrats, however, brought their average down to $34.3 billion, roughly one-third of 2003's level and the lowest since the 106^th Congress (1999).
• The number of lawmakers with higher-spending agendas ($100 billion or more) shrunk from 139 in the previous Congress to 75 in the current Congress. However, 82 Representatives and 75 Senators could not find a single bill to sponsor or cosponsor that would bring down federal outlays.
• Democratic freshman lawmakers had far lower-cost spending agendas (half in the House and one-third less in the Senate) than their senior Democratic colleagues. Yet, the opposite was true for freshman GOP Representatives and Senators, who proposed over 50 percent and 10 percent more, respectively, than longer-serving Republicans.
• House Members of both parties from liberal "blue states" had higher average agendas than their conservative "red state" colleagues, but in the Senate, the trend only held for Democrats.

"The hurricanes that struck during the August recess of 2005 changed the atmosphere in Washington," NTUF Senior Policy Analyst and study author Demian Brady concluded. "In response to the disaster, tens of billions were promised for relief, even as Congressional coalitions emerged to call for offsetting reductions and public ire grew more intense over spending earmarks. These developments may prod fiscal reforms, but as BillTally shows, lawmakers still have some math to do if they want to balance their overall spending agendas."

NTUF is the non-partisan research arm of the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union, a citizen group founded in 1969. Note: NTU Foundation BillTally Report 109-1, Before the Budget Deluge, is available online at www.ntu.org.