From the transcript of the Connecticut Senate - May 31, 2007 - debate on the tax package:
"SEN. MEYER:
Colleagues, I'm just thinking what the weary
watchers of CT-N must be thinking during this debate. Because here we are, we
are, we all speak the English language, we all read the English language, and
yet the conclusions that are being drawn are so very different.
Indeed, the conclusions are, I think as
Senator Nickerson said, suggests that either one side or the other is having an
I have read the bill, and I have looked at
the OFA analysis, and for our constituents who don't know what OFA is, it's an
independent office, nonpartisan, very professional. It stands for the Office of
Fiscal Analysis.
And it has given us a very, I believe, very
accurate report of what we're doing here tonight. And I refer my colleagues, as
well as constituents who happen to be watching at this very late hour, to refer
to Page 2 of the OFA analysis, which says that the bill we're voting upon will
exempt sales tax on computer and data processing equipment, all health club
services, certain meals, and residential weatherization products.
Those are tax exemptions. Those are not tax
increases.
The OFA analysis goes on to Page 4 and says
that for couples earning $ 100,000 or less, which certainly are the majority of
people in most of our districts, maybe not yours Senator Nickerson, that the
rate of tax imposed by the State of Connecticut will go from 5. 0% down to 4.
85% this year, and next year it will go down from 5% to 4. 75%.
That, colleagues and constituents of
It goes on to talk on Pages 4 and 5 about the
property tax credit. And many of us have fought the hardest for property tax
relief in
The property tax credit that is being
increased here is really remarkable because it's being increased for our tax
paying constituents in two ways.
First of all, it's being doubled. The credit
that you will be able to take on your tax returns is being doubled from $ 500
to $ 1,000. And secondly, it's expanding the number of people in the higher
incomes to be eligible for that property tax credit.
If you look, for example, at Page 5 of the
analysis of the Office of Fiscal Analysis, you will see that under the current
law, which we are changing tonight, that the $ 500 property tax credit stops
when you earn $ 100,500.
Under the law that we're changing tonight,
you'll be able to get a $ 1,000 tax credit, a $ 1,000 write-off off of bottom
lines or tax credit. There's no tax deduction. And it will apply not at one, at
$ 100,000, but it will apply at $ 150,000. And you will be entitled to take the
full tax credit of $ 1,000 even if you earn an income up to $ 150,000.
And as the analysis further shows, we will
continue to be eligible for some property tax credit for incomes up to $
230,000. This is a major property tax relief for the State of
It's something that everyone, Republican or
Democrat or Independent, everyone in this Chamber, everyone in the State of
And then the analysis goes on to talk about
petroleum products gross earnings tax, and that's a very significant
postponement of tax here that will cause a reduction of, it'll cause revenue
problems for us because we are proposing here to stop scheduled increases in the
petroleum products gross earnings tax.
It currently is at the rate of 6. 3%, and we
are proposing delaying that, an increase in that until July of 2008, and then
continuing to delay for three years any increase in that petroleum tax.
And when you take that delay of tax together
with the passage this evening of gasoline tax reduction, we are conferring a
major benefit on our constituents.
So I don't understand how people who read the
same English language could reach such different conclusions. This clearly, for
the majority of our people, and I understand that it doesn't apply to people
who are earning $ 300,000 and more, but for the majority of people it's a clear
tax break to [inaudible] break, should be supported with enthusiasm by all of
us in this Chamber.
And I just would say to my Republican
colleagues, particularly because of the property tax credit that's given here,
do think this over carefully before you vote no. Thank you, Mr. President."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
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. MEYER:
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to address
my remarks to those colleagues who were thinking of voting against this bill.
We live in such a different day than when many of us were college students.
When we were college students, and I just had
this afternoon my fiftieth anniversary, college anniversary, when we were
growing up, you know, there were some people who came from Puerto Rico and that
was about it.
Today, we're looking at immigration coming
from all over the world to the State of Connecticut and to the United States.
So many different backgrounds.
It is, the immigration is now what is making
this country great. Do you know that in the most recent study it was found that
immigrants contributed over $ 50 billion in one year of taxes to the United
States Treasury? Over $ 50 billion in one year.
And then the figures have always grabbed me
about the significance of having a college education, which this bill will
permit.
If a young person gets a college education,
the average earning of that college graduate in this country is a little bit
over $ 45,000 a year. While the earnings of a high school graduate only are a
little bit less than $ 24,000 a year. Remarkable difference. Remarkable
difference in what that young person will contribute to a life of Connecticut.
I've been very impressed by a study that was
done in the State of Texas which approved exactly the kind of bill that we have
before us today. And what that study in Texas showed was that more than $ 5 was
generated into the economy for every dollar that Texas invested in immigrant
students.
And it also found, and this is the most
significant part of what I'd say, that study in Texas also found that the
long-term cost implication of denying a college education to immigrant children
was estimated at $ 319 billion because of an anticipated increase in social
service cost and the loss of tax revenue from those young immigrants.
This is a new day. Think it over carefully. This is a major part of our population. This is a major part of the growth of Connecticut, and let's give these young people every advantage. Thank you, Mr. President."