DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Back-to-Basics Budgeting Nationwide, states collectively are facing the worst budget crises since World War II. Much of what states are up against was spawned by events very much beyond their control. The irrational exuberance of the stock market in the mid to late 1990s and the bursting of the IT and telecom bubbles continue to have negative implications on all areas of state revenue growth. It was hard to imagine the rapidity and overwhelming negative trajectory that the market correction took. To make matters worse, the corporate fraud and abuse that gripped the headlines and read like a sordid novel continue to cause investor worry and muddle the equity markets. The fallout of the events of 9/11 drove the nation deeper into its slumber and consequently we still teeter on the edge of a double-dip recession. Further, the anticipation of war with Iraq is battering consumer and business confidence and is forestalling the economic recovery that the principal economic measures seem to point to. In the early 1990s, the advent of managed care made great strides in reducing waste and inefficiency in the health care system. But even with continuing vigilance against excesses, spiraling health care inflation has returned with a vengeance. Coupled with burgeoning public assistance enrollment in these times of need, health care costs are leading to double-digit increases in states’ anticipated budgets -- at a time when revenues are actually dropping or, at best, are seeing meager growth. But policy-makers and elected officials, too, bear some blame for the plight that states find themselves in. The roaring ‘90s allowed states the latitude to add significant new programs that today are draining coffers. Still enthralled with the frenzied atmosphere of tax cutting and program expansion, a blind eye was turned to the impending downturn. To deal with the softening of the economy and market corrections over the past few years, a myriad of quick fixes and one-time revenues were invented to paper the way back to budget balance and prosperity. It didn’t work. If the last paragraph sounds like a mea culpa – it is. While external events played a role, Connecticut, like most other states, failed to make the fundamental changes needed in 2001 and 2002 to right its budget mess. This document is all about recognizing that structural and permanent changes are needed in the state budget if we are to salvage the state’s bond rating and balance the books over the long term. Much is said about Connecticut’s relative position as compared with a number of other states. We do not have the worst fiscal crisis, in large measure because the state’s spending cap did act as a firewall against the uncontrolled spending increases that we saw in the late 1980s. (This fiscal year’s deficit is just 5 percent of general fund expenditures. Next fiscal year’s current services gap is about 15 percent of planned expenditures.) The restructuring of the state’s economy over the last decade has meant a more diversified economy and with it a recession that is relatively mild compared with the one ten years ago. We retain some strategic advantages, including our highly skilled work force and budding clusters of the future, over other states. But these relative strengths should not and cannot be used as an excuse to do what we have done over the past several years. Indeed, if we put our financial house in order, our relative strengths will be our competitive edge moving into the future. Thus, this budget – however reluctantly – raises taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars to help balance the budget. The tax increase plan attempts to ensure that the pain of balancing the budget is shared by all – income-earners at all levels, consumers, and businesses. Fundamental to the tax plan is that our economic competitiveness is not compromised. This budget abides by the spending cap – which will become as much of the budget battle over the next few months as the revenue gap. Hundreds of millions of dollars in anticipated spending is reduced over the next two fiscal years. The reductions are aimed at protecting fundamental and 1 INTRODUCTION basic services. It also recognizes that the years of unfettered entitlements – which called for gold- plated benefits for as many people as possible -- are gone and can no longer be sustained. This document gets us back to the basics: This budget is all about balance – balancing tax increases and spending cuts in an ultimate attempt to balance the budget. The use of one-time revenues and other gimmicks is minimal. People may disagree with its spending priorities – but it attempts to recognize that to stay competitive on the tax front, spending must be limited to absolute necessities. From boom to bust Like many other states, Connecticut saw its budgetary balances go from boom to bust almost in the blink of an General Fund Surplus/Deficit eye. On a gross basis, Connecticut enjoyed Prior To Disposition (In Millions of Dollars) unprecedented surpluses in the mid and late 1990s. In $800 $702 the four years prior to Connecticut registering a deficit, $610 $613 surpluses were between $500 million and $700 million $600 $512 $381 annually. The following year, the state registered a $400 whopping $800 plus million gross deficit. In actuality, if $250 $200 not for a special session that moved prior year surplus to $81 cover a portion of the deficit and some mid-year spending $0 cuts, the gross deficit would have been in excess of $1.2 -$200 billion. -$400 To solve its fiscal woes, the state was forced to draw -$600 down on its entire approximate $600 million Rainy Day -$628 -$800 Fund at the end of FY 2001-02 – something that was -$817 never anticipated. Even then, it had to bond the -$1,000 remaining deficit of just over $220 million for five years. '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 The first Fiscal Year Est. General Fund Unappropriated of the full Surplus/Deficit payments of about $50 million is due in the coming fiscal year. In retrospect, despite abiding by the (In Millions of Dollars) $400 spending cap for ongoing program growth, the state $313 $300 should have placed additional dollars in a Budget $300 $250 $263 Reserve Fund as opposed to concentrating its one- time surplus dollars on debt avoidance and debt $200 retirement. Learning from that mistake, the Governor $81 proposed legislation and the statute was changed to $100 $72 $31 $29 provide that at least 7.5 percent of general fund $0 expenditures are built, over time, into the Rainy Day Fund in the future. -$100 Today, with no Budget Reserve Fund left, the state -$200 faces a gross deficit of $628 million in the current -$222 fiscal year because of the continuing dreary fiscal -$300 climate. (As will be outlined later, the Governor is -$400 proposing a new deficit mitigation plan that will totally '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 close the deficit and mean a $29 million deposit in a new Budget Reserve Fund.) Fiscal Year Est. How could state finances change so quickly and see a swing of as much as $1.8 billion? The answer lies in the huge stock roll up in the mid to late 1990s and the collapse of the equity markets in 2000 and 2001. Capital gains realizations drove much of the surpluses we saw in the 1990s and into the beginning of the current century. As can be seen from the federal data capital gains realizations chart, Connecticut residents’ capital gains realizations increased by booming double-digit growth for 2 INTRODUCTION six years in a row. One has to go back to the beginning of the 1980s to witness a similar experience. Over the past six years, Capital Gains Realizations capital gains realizations grew by more than 500 percent Reported By CT Residents (In Millions) From a state budget standpoint, fiscal analysts continued to predict and budget for a downturn in the market, but the stock Income Capital Percent boom kept chugging along. As can be seen from the revenue Year Gains Change variance chart, in the years of the greatest surpluses anywhere 1994 $2,547 -16% between a third and 70 percent of each fiscal year’s surplus was tied to the stock market gains – that is even though just between 1995 $3,832 50% 12.5 percent and 15 percent of income tax revenue comes from 1996 $4,732 23% such income. The estimates and finals category of the state 1997 $7,787 65% income tax, about half of which is capital gains in good stock 1998 $9,867 27% market years, rose between 14 percent and 32 percent annually in 1999 $11,800 20% those six years. 2000 $15,435 31% And as is the case in most wealthy Revenue Variance Due Primarily To Income Tax Collections states, rising stock markets tend to mean healthy increases in other tax $799.8 $800 $704.2 revenues as well, especially the $624.4 5.8% $567.6 . $532.4 74.7% 57.7% withholding portion of the income tax 67.4% $400 68.9% $526 26.3% $461 29.8% 46.4% and the sales tax. Withholding tax 49.2% $421 $262 $264 grew between 7.5 percent and 15.1 21.5% 12.1% 27.7% 31.4% 37.6% 34.3% 8.6% percent annually in the boom years, $0 -18.7% -53.7% -$421 with sales taxes going up 3.6 -$576 percent to 8.6 percent annually.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vetoes and Venues: Economic Crisis and the Roads to Recovery in Michigan and Ontario
    Vetoes and Venues: Economic Crisis and the Roads to Recovery in Michigan and Ontario JOHN CONSTANTELOS Grand Valley State University The Great Recession in 2008–2009 was devastating to the Great Lakes region, exacerbating a nearly decade-long industrial crisis that had already eliminated one million manufacturing jobs. This article examines how subnational governments in Canada and the United States adjusted to the cascading economic disaster. It compares and analyzes the cases of Ontario and Michigan, which have similar economies but important politi- cal institutional differences, notably in the executive-legislative relationship and in their policy-making power. These cases, which share an international border, offer control over an unusually large number of alternative explan- atory factors, permitting a focused analysis of the impact of divided govern- ment and fiscal decentralization on executive policy making. The analysis draws on and integrates the veto player and venue shopping literatures. After presenting the research problem and design, the article turns to the two case studies. These review executive responses to the economic challenges in the years leading up to, during and immediately after the Great Recession. The article finishes with a comparative evaluation of the executives’ economic strategies and the factors that explain the observed differences. The main thesis is that Ontario’s more robust policy response to the economic crisis was related to its institutional advantage of having greater fiscal resources than Michigan and a parliamentary system instead of a separation of powers and divided government. Limited resources and Acknowledgments: My thanks go to Angela Foreman, Ashley Vande Bunte, Abby Vance and Kylene Kalawart for their research assistance, to Michaël Tatham for the ab- stract translation and to Paul Cornish, Polly Diven, Peter Graefe, Lotte Jensen, Francesco Stolfi and the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Money and Judicial Independence: Can Inherent Powers Protect State Courts in Tough Fiscal Times? Michael L
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 92 | Issue 4 Article 5 2004 Of Money and Judicial Independence: Can Inherent Powers Protect State Courts in Tough Fiscal Times? Michael L. Buenger Supreme Court of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Courts Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Buenger, Michael L. (2004) "Of Money and Judicial Independence: Can Inherent Powers Protect State Courts in Tough Fiscal Times?," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 92 : Iss. 4 , Article 5. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol92/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Of Money and Judicial Independence: Can Inherent Powers Protect State Courts in Tough Fiscal Times? BY MICHAEL L. BUENGER* The complete independence of the courts ofjustice is peculiarlyessential in a limited constitution. Without this, all the reservations of particularrights or privileges would amount to nothing.' We are looking at the dismantlingof our court system; it is a very painful process.2 3 We're talking about things that are simply horrendous. INTRODUCTION I t is described as "the worst budget crisis among the states since World War II."' State officials across the country have likened it to B.A. (cum laude) 1983, University of Dayton; J.D. (cum laude) 1989, St.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Connecticut Hunting & Trapping Guide
    2016 CONNECTICUT HUNTING & TRAPPING Connecticut Department of VISIT OUR WEBSITE Energy & Environmental Protection www.ct.gov/deep/hunting MONARCH® BINOCULARS Built to satisfy the incredible needs of today’s serious outdoorsmen & women, MONARCH binoculars not only bestow the latest in optical innovation upon the passions of its owner, but offer dynamic handling & rugged performance for virtually any hunting situation. MONARCH® RIFLESCOPES Bright, clear, precise, rugged - just a few of the attributes knowledgeable hunters commonly use to describe Nikon® riflescopes. Nikon® is determined to bring hunters, shooters & sportsmen a wide selection of the best hunting optics money can buy, while at the same time creating revolutionary capabilities for the serious hunter. Present this coupon for $25 OFF your in-store purchase of $150 or more! Valid through December 31, 2016 Not valid online, on gift cards, non-merchandise items, licenses, previous purchases or special orders. Excludes NIKON, CARHARTT, UGG, THE NORTH FACE, PATAGONIA, MERRELL, DANSKO, AVET REELS, SHIMANO, G.LOOMIS & SAGE items. Cannot be combined with any other offer. No copies. One per customer. No cash value. CT2016 Kittery Trading Post / Rte 1 Kittery, ME / Mon-Sat 9-9, Sun 10-6 / 888-587-6246 / ktp.com / ktpguns.com 2016 CONNECTICUT HUNTING & TRAPPING Contents Licenses, Permits & Tags ............................................................ 8–10 Firearms Hunting Licenses Small Game and Deer Archery Deer and Turkey Permits Pheasant Tags Waterfowl Stamps Hunter Education Requirements Lost License Handicapped License Hunting Laws & Regulations ..................................................... 12–15 BE BEAR AWARE, page 6 Definitions Learn what you should do if you encounter bears in the outdoors or around Closed Seasons your home.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Program Spending and State Fiscal Crises
    Finegold, Schardin, Maag, Steinbach, Merriman, and Weil Occasional Paper The Urban Institute http://www.urban.org E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 202.429.0687 Phone: 202.833.7200 Washington, DC 20037 2100 M Street, NW SocialSocial ProgramProgram SpendingSpending andand StateState FiscalFiscal CrisesCrises Social Program Spending and State Fiscal Crises KennethKenneth FinegoldFinegold StephanieStephanie SchardinSchardin ElaineElaine MaagMaag RebeccaRebecca SteinbachSteinbach DavidDavid MerrimanMerriman AlanAlan WeilWeil Occasional Paper Number 70 Permit No. 8098 Nonprofit Org. Assessing U.S. Postage Mt. Airy, MD PAID the New Federalism An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies Social Program Spending and State Fiscal Crises Kenneth Finegold Stephanie Schardin Elaine Maag Rebecca Steinbach David Merriman Alan Weil Occasional Paper Number 70 The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Assessing Phone: 202.833.7200 the New Fax: 202.429.0687 Federalism E-mail: [email protected] An Urban Institute http://www.urban.org Program to Assess Changing Social Policies Copyright © November 2003. The Urban Institute. All rights reserved. Except for short quotes, no part of this paper may be reproduced in any form or used in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the Urban Institute. This report is part of the Urban Institute’s Assessing the New Federalism project, a multiyear effort to monitor and assess the devolution of social programs from the federal to the state and local levels. Alan Weil is the project director. The project analyzes changes in income support, social services, and health programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Wildlife July/Aug 2008
    July/August 2008 PUBLISHED BY THE CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF NATURAL RESOURCES ● WILDLIFE DIVISION July/August 2008 Connecticut Wildlife Volume 28, Number 4 ● July / August 2008 From ���������� � ������� the Director �Published bimonthly by State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection “Is it dangerous?” State agencies are www.ct.gov/dep asked that question more frequently as Gina McCarthy ................................................................... Commissioner the interface between people and wildlife Edward C. Parker ............................. Chief, Bureau of Natural Resources becomes less distinct. In general, people Wildlife Division are less knowledgeable about nature than 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860-424-3011) Dale May ..................................................................................... Director their forefathers, so there is a mystery Greg Chasko ................................................................ Assistant Director factor. There also appears to be a fascination factor as television audiences Mark Clavette ......................Program Specialist/Recreation Management Laurie Fortin .......................................Recreation Management Biologist are treated to a nightly tooth, fang and claw buffet of crocodile wrestling, Elaine Hinsch ...............................................................Program Specialist venomous snake collecting and searches for unidentified carnivores that are Brenda Marquez .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for Improving the Congressional Budget Process July 2015
    Proposal for Improving the Congressional Budget Process July 2015 Written by: Alice M. Rivlin and Pete Domenici Authors Pete V. Domenici Former Senator from New Mexico, BPC Senior Fellow Alice M. Rivlin, Ph.D Former Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office Staff G. William Hoagland Senior Vice President ACKNOWLEDGMENTS “This report would not have been possible without the insights and hard work of BPC Senior Vice President G. William Hoagland. Bill’s knowledge and experience with the budget process are legendary. We are both deeply grateful for Bill’s loyalty, wisdom, and friendship over many years, as well as his major contributions to this report.” — Alice M. Rivlin and Pete Domenici This paper was also produced with oversight from the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Economic Policy Project, Democracy Project, and the Bipartisan Policy Center Advocacy Network. The authors would like to thank Barry Anderson, Len Burman, Stuart Butler, Richard Kogan, Jim Dyer, Alan Frumin, Scott Gudes, Jim Hearn, Phil Joyce, Brett Loper, Donald Marron, Joe Minarik, Jim Morhard, Rudolph Penner, Billy Pitts, Paul Posner, Robert Reischauer, Peter Robinson, and John Sullivan for their comments and suggestions. The authors also wish to acknowledge those congressional staff who also provided early input into issues surrounding the congressional budget process. Ultimately, however, the recommendations herein are those of the authors, and those who provided input into the development of this paper may not support many individual recommendations herein. DISCLAIMER The findings and recommendations expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s founders or its board of directors.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut State Parks System
    A Centennial Overview 1913-2013 www.ct.gov/deep/stateparks A State Park Centennial Message from Energy and Environmental Protection Commissioner Robert J. Klee Dear Friends, This year, we are celebrating the Centennial of the Connecticut State Parks system. Marking the 100th anniversary of our parks is a fitting way to pay tribute to past conservation-minded leaders of our state, who had the foresight to begin setting aside important and scenic lands for public access and enjoyment. It is also a perfect moment to commit ourselves to the future of our park system – and to providing first-class outdoor recreation opportunities for our residents and visitors well into the future. Our park system had humble beginnings. A six-member State Park Commission was formed by then Governor Simeon Baldwin in 1913. One year later the Commission purchased its first land, about four acres in Westport for what would become Sherwood Island State Park. Today, thanks to the dedication and commitment of many who have worked in the state park system over the last century, Connecticut boasts a park system of which we can all be proud. This system includes 107 locations, meaning there is a park close to home no matter where you live. Our parks cover more than 32,500 acres and now host more than eight million visitors a year – and have hosted a remarkable total of more than 450 million visitors since we first began counting in 1919. Looking beyond the statistics, our parks offer fantastic opportunities for families to spend time outdoors together. They feature swimming, boating, hiking, picnicking, camping, fishing – or simply the chance to enjoy the world of nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Wildlife Nov/Dec 2014
    November/December 2014 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISIONS OF WILDLIFE, INLAND & MARINE FISHERIES, AND FORESTRY November/December 2014 Connecticut Wildlife 1 Volume 34, Number 6 ● November/December 2014 From the Connecticut Director’s Wildlife Published bimonthly by Connecticut Department of Desk Energy and Environmental Protection Bureau of Natural Resources Wildlife Division www.ct.gov/deep We celebrated a remarkable person recently – Frank Wasylink, a volunteer Commissioner Senior Instructor for Connecticut’s Conservation Education/Firearms Robert Klee Deputy Commissioner Safety (CE/FS) Program. Frank is unique in many wonderful ways. Most Susan Whalen especially, he has a deep passion for wildlife and young people. Through Chief, Bureau of Natural Resources the CE/FS Program, Frank has lived those passions to their fullest for over William Hyatt 20 years. Director, Wildlife Division Rick Jacobson Of a cadre of more than 300 volunteers, Frank stands apart. He proudly Magazine Staff volunteers to provide instruction in firearms safety, trapping, and archery, Managing Editor Kathy Herz as well as sharing what it means to be an outstanding member of the Production Editor Paul Fusco hunting and trapping community. Certified as a CE/FS instructor in 1993 Contributing Editors: Mike Beauchene (Inland Fisheries) Penny Howell (Marine Fisheries) and then as a Senior Instructor in 1998, Frank serves as a mentor, not only Christopher Martin (Forestry) to his students, but also to other instructors wishing to share their talents Circulation Trish Cernik with aspiring trappers and hunters. And, what a mentor he is. Wildlife Division In September 2014, Frank, with the help of his teaching team, presented his 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860-424-3011) 291st course.
    [Show full text]
  • Balanced Budget Objectives and the Role of Executives: the Cases of Italy, Spain and US States
    Rivista N°: 2/2019 DATA PUBBLICAZIONE: 17/04/2019 AUTORE: Mario Iannella Balanced Budget Objectives and the Role of Executives: The cases of Italy, Spain and US states Introduction; 2. Eurozone Cases: Centralisation in Italy and Spain; A. Crisis, supranational intervention and constitutional reform in Italy; B. Crisis, supranational intervention and constitutional reform in Spain; C. Reshaping Relationships between State and Autonomies; D. Balance between Executive and Legislative; E. Centralisation and Vertical Integration; 3. The Case of the US states; A. The Role of Executives; B. The Effects of Constraints on Intergovernmental Relationships; C. The Effects of Vertical Integration on State Budget Management; 4. Cen- tralisation process. Causes and Consequences; A. Differences and Similarities in Budget Constraints in the EMU and US; B. The Need for a Responsible in Budget Management; 5. Conclusions 1. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the economic crisis in Europe has led to several reforms in the institutional frameworks of the Member States and the EU.1 The new governance of fiscal policies has been characterised at the supranational level by the adoption of stricter budget rules 2 and at the national level, in the modification of national laws amidst the crisis. In particular, in the countries affected by severe financial downturns, these changes took the form of wide-ranging reform plans, including both constitutional amendments and socio-economic restructuring. In this process, a new frame of internal relationships between the centre and the periphery and a new role for central government emerged. These elements partially redefined the national Constitutions even more radically than the formal reforms had required.3 Dottore di ricerca in Persona e Tutele giuridiche nella Scuola Superiore Sant’ Anna di Pisa.
    [Show full text]
  • Affordable Care Act Entrenchment
    ARTICLES Affordable Care Act Entrenchment ABBE R. GLUCK* & THOMAS SCOTT-RAILTON** The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the most challengedÐand the most resilientÐstatute in modern American history. Through and despite hun- dreds of court challenges, scores of congressional repeal efforts, unex- pected state resistance, gutting by the Supreme Court, unprecedented administrative strangulation, and criticism from the beginning that the statute did not go far enough to embrace the principle of universal healthcare, the ACA has changed the way many Americans and the polit- ical arena think about healthcare and the entitlement to it. Over its ten-year lifespan, the ACA went from being the rallying cry of the GOP in 2010, to the center of the Democratic platform in 2018, cata- pulting universal healthcare to the top of the 2020 Democratic presiden- tial primary agenda. It began as a statute criticized for its practical compromises and its incrementalismÐincluding leaving most insurance in the private market and retaining state control over large swaths of health policyÐbut those very compromises have, surprisingly, proved key to the ACA's resilience. They have also been instrumental in the ACA's entrenchment of not only its own reforms but also a broader, emerging principle of a universal right to healthcare. The idea of health- care for all Americans administered through the federal government was long viewed as political suicide, including as recently as the 2016 presi- dential election. In an astonishingly fast turnaround, that idea has now been considered and debated by every Democratic presidential hopeful. The ACA's principles have been codi®ed outside of federal law and into state law, voted on in ballot initiatives, and advocated for on late- night TV.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legal Framework for Budget
    «OECD Journal on Budgeting OECD Journal on Budgeting 4, Volume No. 3 Special Issue Special Issue The Legal Framework for Budget Systems The Legal AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON Framework for The legal basis for budget processes and budget actors varies enormously across OECD countries. For example, the United States has a dozen major laws Budget Systems to support federal government budget processes, while Denmark and Norway have never adopted any such law. AN INTERNATIONAL To understand this situation, this book compares legal frameworks for budgeting COMPARISON in 13 selected OECD countries. It presents detailed case studies of national budget system laws and identifies why the legal frameworks differ so much. The book also looks at theories of public finance and constitutional political economics, and discusses norms for an optimum legal framework. With a focus on similarities and differences in formal laws (constitutions and statutes relating to the budget system), the comparative analysis will be useful for any government planning to reform its budget laws. OECD Journal on Budgeting OECD’s books, periodicals and statistical databases are now available via www.SourceOECD.org, our online library. This book is available to subscribers to the following SourceOECD themes: Finance and Investment/Insurance and Pensions Governance [email protected] www.oecd.org ISSN 1608-7143 42 2004 05 1 P 2004 SUBSCRIPTION (4 ISSUES) Volume 4, No. 3 -:HRLGKI=\VYUUW: Volume 4, No. 3 OECD Journal on Budgeting Volume 4 – No. 3 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Connecticut Regulation of Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Concerning State Park Rules
    Connecticut eRegulations System — Tracking Number PR2015-181 — Posted 11/1/2016 Page 1 of 6 State of Connecticut Regulation of Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Concerning State Park Rules Sec. 23-4-1. General regulations (a) Hours of operation. State parks and state forest recreation areas shall be open for public use daily between sunrise and sunset. State parks shall be open to public vehicular traffic daily between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and sunset, except as otherwise specifically authorized by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Other state forest areas shall be open between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. (b) Vandalism and possession of food or beverage inside historic structures. (1) No person shall deface, destroy, alter, remove or otherwise injure in any manner any structures, buildings, vegetation, earth or rock material, trees, or fuelwood, nor shall any wildlife be molested or disturbed except as authorized by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. The Commissioner may grant upon written application, permission to collect specimens, take samples and conduct other investigations for scientific or educational purposes. Such permission shall be in writing and shall be subject to such conditions as the Commissioner deems necessary. (2) No person shall possess food or beverage inside of historic structures unless permitted by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. (c) Hunting/weapons. Hunting or carrying of firearms, archery equipment or other weapons, including but not limited to air rifles and slingshots, is not permitted in any state park or forest except as authorized by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
    [Show full text]