DonDee,
Reading your post above, I'd like to offer a bit of background to put Rep Johnston's vote in context. Here's my two cents:
The fees portion of this bill was a MINOR piece of the overall Deficit Mitigation package, which is valued at something like $480M in reductions. (Zyg's post has specifics).
According to my friends at the Capital, Rep Johnston's vote had nothing to do with the fees reduction, rather his concerns were for some of the methods used to "achieve" the savings that will be claimed in this overall package. Two striking examples in the bill come to mind: This package will delay $100M in pension payments to the state pension fund, and it will also "use" $100-$150M from NEXT YEAR'S rainy day fund to help achieve the savings target claimed.
Think about that second example for a minute.....that example assumes Ct will contribute $100M-$150M to the rainy day fund NEXT YEAR! Call me a cynic, but I doubt that the legislature will be able to fund a rainy day account next year, since its facing a hurricane already this year, and next year's structural deficit is in the BILLIONS.
So with that background, I can accept that a Rep would object to passage of the bill if he genuinely could not support the methods used to get this overall bill passed. I was told that he wanted deeper, more solid cuts in spending before he would sign on to pass the bill. Therefore, I don't believe the sportsmen's fee issue even entered into his decision criteria, given his bigger concerns over the bill.
(BTW, I don't know Rep Johnston or have any connections to the legislature other than having friends who are lobbyists watching the budget issue.)
Dave
Previous Topic
Index
