Foley / Malloy: Will "discretionary funds" survive?

Many of you are aware of my distaste for the slush funds discretionary funds in the state budget. The Governor, Speaker of the House and Senate President each get a $12 million slush fund discretionary fund annually for a total of $36,000,000 that can be distributed without a vote by the legislature.

This practice should end. It should end not only because of our huge budget deficit, but also because it embodies bad government.

Now bringing this Hartford issue back to Cheshire... it was former Speaker Amann's fund that provided the $525,000 turf grant. Recognizing that fact -- but not because of it -- I contacted both the Foley and Malloy campaigns and asked them for their thoughts on these so-called discretionary funds:

Dear Mssrs. Foley and Malloy,

The August 3, 2008 editorial in the Waterbury Republican American clearly explains the existence of an annual $36,000,000 discretionary fund in the state budget. You can find the editorial here

Do you support or oppose the existence (continuance) of these discretionary funds?

Furthermore, while the Bond Commission has already voted in favor of discretionary funds over the past few years, not all of these discretionary funds have actually been spent. In relation to balancing the state budget, do you support or oppose a “clawback” of unexpended discretionary funds? (This question is related to both the $10m x 3 people that goes through the Bond Commission and the $2m x 3 people that does not go through the Bond Commission.)

Regards,
Tim White
Cheshire

I haven't gotten a response yet from either camp, but hope to get responses soon. When I hear from them, I'll post their responses.* By the way, I'm thinking that this may be an appropriate question for all the state legislative candidates as well.

Tim White

* I called both camps and told them that I intend to post their responses on TWL.