From the transcript of the Connecticut Senate - May 31, 2007 - debate on the tax package:
"SEN. GAFFEY:
. . .
We shouldn't say we're going to spend X
amount until we know we have the dollars in hand. Just like back at home, you
can't spend what you don't have.
So here tonight we put a tax package out that
says we're going to need X amount of revenue to meet the needs of the State of
It is the charge of the Minority Party to criticize.
I understand that. I respect it. But let's have an intellectually honest debate
about what we need to do in the course of governing in the State of
We have to raise money to meet the needs of
the State of
Now, Mr. President, and ladies and gentlemen
of the Senate, an expectation was raised back on February the 7th,
an expectation that we were going to fund services in
And there was a whole series of revenue
recommendations, revenue enhancement recommendations made that income
increases, cigarette tax increase, by the way, that wasn't proposed by the
Senate Democratic Caucus. It was proposed by the Governor to go to an
additional $ . 049 per pack tax increase.
Read the budget that was offered that day.
That was offered by the Governor, not by the Senate Democratic Party. The
Governor also recommended that we increase the income tax flat percent
increases.
What we have proposed in the bill before us
tonight, and I commend Senator Daily for her hard work because what she's put
forward tonight is the first equitable tax package that this state has seen.
Because certainly what passed in 1991 with
the adoption of the income tax wasn't very equitable to people across
Back then, unearned income was taxed as high
as 14%, 14%. That rate was reduced to 4. 5% in one fell swoop in 1991. Now
think about that, and this is the crux of the debate here tonight, and people
may not want to face the fact, but this is the crux of the debate.
A 14% tax rate was decreased to 4. 5% for the
wealthiest people in the State of
Now couple that with a stock market that has
grown expeditiously. I mean, back then, it was, what, around 8, if that, to now
at 13. 5? Think about the yield that was realized on unearned income with that
nearly 10% tax cut for the richest of the super rich not only in
So what are we proposed? We are proposed a
progressive income tax, a graduate income tax. And if you read the fiscal note,
despite what else was said tonight, for joint filers in excess of $ 250,000,
yes, they will pay a little more.
So we have to make a quarter of a million
dollars a year to pay a little bit more in the State of
Don't take my words for it. That's what the
Office of Fiscal Analysis note says. So in my mind, for the last 15, 16 years,
almost 16 years now, where we have had a tax cut that amounted to nearly 10% on
unearned income for the wealthiest people in the State of Connecticut, it's
just fair for folks that make less than $ 250,000, quarter of a million dollars
a year, for [inaudible] to get a break on the income.
That's what this is bill about tonight my
friends. It's a break on the income tax for people that make less than a
quarter of a million dollars a year who file jointly.
It also is a break for people who pay
property tax, who are either 48th or 49th in the country
per capita burdened on property tax, depending upon which study you read.
But you all agree [inaudible] will be one of
the heaviest property tax burdens in the
I don't begrudge anybody that has a
constituency that makes a good deal of money, more power to them. This is
But I would daresay that most of us around
this Circle have constituents, by and large, that on a joint filing basis make
less than $ 250,000 a year and that would appreciate a property tax credit that
doubles from $ 500 to $ 1,000, would appreciate paying a lot less income tax
today or tomorrow when this is passes than they have to pay today.
It's fair. It's equitable. It recognizes the
fact that since 1991 a massive tax cut was passed for the wealthiest people in
the State of
And again, I don't begrudge anybody what they
make, but what we're about to do is to pass a bill that asserts that equity
should be our charge of this day, providing equity for the people of the State
of Connecticut and how they pay their taxes.
With that, Mr. President, I would urge
passage of the bill."
_____________________________________________________________________________
From the debate on a bill to allow children of immigrants who attend Connecticut high schools for four years and then graduate to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities - transcript of the Connecticut Senate - June 1, 2007:
"SEN. GAFFEY:
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I
rise in support of the legislation before the body and I want to commend
Senator Harris for his leadership in taking this bill out, and for arguing in
favor of it in such an eloquent manner.
Mr. President, this has been referred to as a
difficult issue. It is a difficult issue. I've thought about how I would vote
on this bill for quite some time.
I've read a lot about the issue. I've looked
at the law, and it's easy or it would be easy for me to stand up here today and
make the arguments against the bill.
It's easy to stand up and to opine upon folks
in Connecticut as breaking the law because they are undocumented folks in this
state and in this country.
I've heard today a number of times now about
priorities and how this issue today and this debate is about do we have our
priorities right.
I heard today that if we had our priorities
right, we would be funding CICSG and CAPCS at the full level. Well, just for
the edification of the Senate, the bill passed the Higher Education Committee
to fund CICSG and CAPCS at the full level.
So that question has been determined by that
committee, but we all know in the process of deliberation and negotiation on a
budget we can fund, no matter how much we like a certain program, we can fund
it to a certain level because of the competing demands of the budget across the
spectrum of needs and services that serve the people of the State of
Connecticut.
I heard early in this debate today, and I
must add I took offense to it, that this was about the priorities of the
Democratic Party.
Mr. President, Members of the Senate, this is
not a Republican or Democratic issue. This is an issue of conscious. No matter
how you come down on the question, it is up to your own individual conscious.
There is not a partisan thread within that
determination. In fact, Mr. President, when I did my research, I read the
statement of United States Senator Orin Hatch to the Judiciary Committee,
Judiciary statement on the Dream Act.
Now I dare say that I don't think that
there's probably a more conservative member in the United States Senate than
Senator Orin Hatch.
In his statement to the Judiciary Committee,
Mr. President and Members of the Senate, I think Senator Orin Hatch summed up
this issue as best as I've heard anybody sum it up or read about the issue in
someone summing up this issue.
And he wrote and I quote, each year about
50,000 young undocumented immigrants graduated from high school in the United
States. Most of them come to this country with their parents as small children,
and they've been raised here just like their United States citizens classmates,
and they consider themselves as Americans and are loyal to our country.
They did not make the initial decision to
enter the United States illegally, and some day may not even realize that they
are here in violation of our immigration laws. They grow up to become honest
and hardworking adolescents and young adults and strive for academic as well as
professional excellence.
Many of these youngsters find themselves
caught in a catch-22 situation. As illegal immigrants, they cannot work legally
and are also effectively barred from developing academically beyond high school
because of the high cost of pursuing higher education. We have a choice to
either keep these talented young people underground or give them a chance to
contribute to the United States.
Mr. President, that, I believe, sums up the
issue. That persuaded me that the right thing to do is to vote in favor of this
bill because these children are caught in the classic catch-22 situation.
These children didn't choose to, quote
unquote, break the law. These children came with their parents to this great
country of ours and are probably living right next to us in our own very
neighborhoods today.
And who amongst us would deprive these
children from attaining a higher education experience and moving on to
contribute to the United States this great country that we have.
So this is not an issue of priorities of any
political party. This is an issue of conscious and how you come down on the
question.
Ten states have adopted this law. Twice it
has been challenged. In the State of Kansas it has been thrown out. In the
State of California, the California statute was upheld by the lower court and
has not been challenged in a higher court.
And I will quote from the judge in the
California case that upheld the California Statutes in the case of Martinez,
et al. v. The Regents of the University of California.
In that decision, the judge said, quote,
there has been no showing that Congress intended the Immigration and Naturalization
Act or any other federal statute cited by the plaintiffs to occupy the field of
determining resident tuition rates at state universities and community college.
In fact, the state statute in California,
imposes a greater burden on non-citizens by requiring certain aliens to submit
additional evidence to qualify for an exemption from non-resident tuition.
And the judge summed it up, Members of the
Senate, by stating the goal of helping high school students who will likely
remain in California and presumably contribute to the state's economy is a
legitimate governmental purpose.
So, Members of the Senate, Mr. President, in
the only test in the United States of America, in the judiciary of our great
states across this land, this particular judge in California found that not
only does it pass legal muster, but it is of great governmental purpose that we
allow these students access to higher education at the in-state tuition rate.
I stated earlier many of these children
probably reside very close to us in our own neighborhoods. In my hometown of
Meriden, we have many people of Polish descent, of Latino descent that may be
undocumented.
I for one couldn't in good conscious, in
making this decision today, deprive any of those children the access to an education
in our great constituent units of education, higher education here in the State
of Connecticut.
For those reasons, Mr. President, I urge all
Members of the Senate vote your conscious and vote yes in favor of this bill.
Thank you, Sir."