The lieutenant governor was my first stop, Vince Illuzi was another, and
Doug Racine came to my home to speak with me. I also spoke briefly with
two of our own representatives here in Waterbury. My ideas went
absolutely nowhere with any of them, and it worries me that we're going
to walk down the same path of economic disaster for another two years.
Here is my pitch: I'm in the construction industry (one of the areas
that has been most depressed during this recession) and my ideas are
relative to that.
JOB CREATION
I would propose a bill for five-year total tax abatement on any newly
constructed building up to 1,500 square feet. For example, a new
2,500-square-foot home would only be taxed on 1,000 square feet for the
first five years, and then taxed as normal on its sixth year and
forward. This would allow the homeowner a five-year period to pay down
the cost of the building, whether it's a commercial building, new
addition, garage, shop, house or whatever. This way they would be better
prepared to handle the taxes when they come in five years since
property taxes are one of our biggest problems.
That person would perhaps hire either an architect, designer or a
contractor. The contractor could then rehire some employees. Hence he
would then begin paying back into the unemployment coffers instead of
borrowing money on our kids' backs to pay unemployment.
Next, that contractor would hire some subcontractors such as excavators,
electricians, plumbers, etc. down the line. He would also start buying
building materials, which would create another line of jobs and another
source of revenue. This domino effect would create new revenue for the
state coffers and so the economic ball starts to roll in the right
direction. Vince Illuzzi said the department that collects school taxes
wouldn't go for that because they would lose school taxes. Here's my
response to that: If construction continues to stagnate, they gain no
new revenue at all and our taxes will continue to be paid out of our
current grand list.
Meanwhile, unemployment and other assistance programs continue to
expand. At least new jobs are being created, and in five years the state
has a big shot in the arm. Meanwhile, people get put back to work,
confidence builds, and people have hope again. Continuing to cut
programs, jobs, and borrowing money will not get us out of this
recession.
ENERGY ISSUES
I would propose to fit into this plan a requirement that new
construction projects valued over $500,000 to $750,000 include a
percentage of renewable energy components into its design. Let's say up
to 10 percent of the value or up to 80 percent of its energy usage, one
or the other. This would create new jobs by putting people back to work
installing these systems and selling products.
The big bonus here is that the burden on our power grid would not be
strained and the owners of the system would be happy to have it in the
end. A good example would be the new gas station in Waterbury. Under my
plan, the design would have required some form of renewable energy to
contribute to its own self-efficiency. Some people tell me they don't
want to be mandated to do something like that when building new
projects. Remember that, when the state or the power company gouges you
for more taxes or higher utility costs to deal with our growing energy
problems. You can bet you'll be mandated to pay those costs! At least my
way, the taxpayer gets a self-supporting power system. Their way, your
dollars go into the state coffers and get squandered away. My goal would
be to put the control, responsibility and the burden of making
intelligent economic choices for your future back into the hands of the
taxpayer.
I recently attended a political fundraiser. I ran these by the
candidates. A contractor friend overheard and suggested combining both
parts of my plan and only giving the five-year tax abatement to those
constructing a new building, only if they install some form of renewable
energy source. See there? We just killed three birds with one stone:
jobs, revenue and energy. Plus, don't forget the rebates because it's
renewable energy!
Here's the catch to this economic plan. In order for it to be effective,
we will need to freeze all budgets for two to five years in all
government entities including schools and municipalities. They'll have
to work within themselves to make up for any cost increases by either
becoming more efficient in their production processes or cut where they
can and eliminate some of their dead weight. By doing this, it gives
private business two to five years to gain some economic ground and
after this period state institutions will have new grand list money and
other revenue to work with.
If we could test this program for a year and it proved positive, we
could extend it for a couple more years or indefinitely. And why end it?
After the first five years the grand list would be back to normal, but
people would have had five years to gain ground. The way I see it, this
experiment won't cost a thing to try. We're not borrowing money we don't
have, and I haven't heard anything better come from the mouths of
candidates.
Viens lives in Waterbury Center.
