O’Brien has sent out another mass mailing to confuse and frighten voters. Again he repeatedly attempts to mislead without being an out and out liar. However he wants to slice it, this latest mailing contains several deceptive statements.
Deception One: “Under Tim Stewart, 90% of property tax payers in New Britain are paying more.”
It is unclear where Mr. O’Brien got the figure 90%, as he does not cite a specific source for this figure, but chances are it is accurate. What he neglects to mention is how Mayor Stewart actually lowered the mill rate, which determines taxes owed. The increase was the result of a state mandated revaluation of properties. This revaluation could have been prevented if legislators like Tim O’Brien had been doing their job rather than worrying about their political future.
Deception Two: “As a State Representative, Tim O’Brien increased state aid to New Britain by over $40 million.”
While the figures most likely are reliable, as they are based on information from the State Office of Legislative Research, they are definitely not the whole picture. When Tim O’Brien claims that he increased aid to the city, does he expect an award? That is his job as a state legislator. And while he may have increased funding overall, he also missed key funding that caused a crisis earlier this year as the Board of Education struggled to keep the all day kindergarten and other much needed programs fully staffed.
In fact, Tim O’Brien brings to New Britain far less funding in terms of education (one of the largest sections of any municipal budget) than many other cities in Connecticut receive. The citizens have to pay far more in taxes per student than the citizens of Hartford and other communities. It is cause for concern that the best argument Tim O’Brien can muster for his candidacy is that he was marginally adequate as a legislator.
Deception Three: “O’Brien won approval for landmark property tax reform in the state legislator that would have put millions back in the pockets of New Britain property tax payers every year. Republican Governor Rell vetoed the plan.”
If you look up the legislation that the mailer references (PA 07-248) you can find this document that both enumerates what exactly the bill was supposed to do and why Governor Rell vetoed it. So here is Tim O’Brien’s idea of “landmark property tax reform,” a bill that would have:
- eliminated exemptions for clothing and footwear costing under $ 50 and property costing $ 2,500 or less and used for funerals
- exempted sales of computer and data processing services, all health club services, and meals sold from “honor boxes”
- increased the cigarette tax by 49 cents per pack.
- establishes a range of rates from 4.875% to 5.95% for the 2007 tax year and 4.75% to 6.5% for the 2008 and subsequent tax years, as opposed to the 5% flat rate.
- made permanent the basic 0.25% municipal real estate conveyance tax rate, which was scheduled to drop to 0.11% in July 2007.
In her veto message Governor Rell stated “I will not sign House Bill 7400 because it significantly increases taxes.” She went on to comment “House Bill 7400 eliminates the sales tax exemption for shoes and clothing costing less than fifty dollars. This change will cause a financial burden on every household in Connecticut.” In closing, Governor Rell added:
The most troubling aspect of this bill, however, does not become apparent until the bill is read in conjunction with subsection (a) of Article XXVIII of the Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, which requires that the amount of general budget expenditures authorized for any fiscal year shall not exceed the estimated amount of revenue for such fiscal year. Since this provision of our Constitution requires a balanced budget, where expenditures equal revenues, it is clear that the only reason for the General Assembly to pass a bill that increases state revenues by approximately a billion dollars is that they plan to increase state spending by a billion dollars. I cannot in good faith countenance such a drastic increase in state spending. [...] House Bill 7400, therefore, is not only unnecessary, it gives the General Assembly a license to spend taxpayer money at a level that is unsustainable. In fact, the last time the state increased its spending at such an unsustainable rate was 1989, ultimately resulting in the imposition of the state income tax in 1991.
Oh yes, in case it wasn’t apparent from the above dates, this “landmark” legislation that Tim O’Brien is seeking praise for was written back in 2007, which begs the question as to what our state legislator has done recently for the city of New Britain. Perhaps it is sufficient for a state legislator to only accomplish something once every two or three years, but as a Mayor he would have to work every day to bring accomplishment after accomplishment to New Britain.
Sorry Mr. O’Brien, that is well over three strikes, you are long past out.
