It's interesting that New London politics has begun to pivot on the central budget question of the day: whether taxes should go up a whopping 12.5 percent or the better part of a substantial 6 percent.

I know, I know; that seems like crazy budget talk here in the heartland of Yankee thrift.

I can't even begin to count how many municipal budget meetings I've sat through over the years around here, as elected officials waded through budgets with nail files and clippers, trimming and snipping everything from cheerleader uniform buttons to printer ink, to stay as close to flat spending as possible.

But here in New London, Mayor Daryl Finizio, up for re-election, has instead jammed his foot down on the budget accelerator, driving his proposed tax increase to an eye-popping 12.5 percent.

His only opponent in the race, City Councilor Michael Passero, another Democrat, plucked all the low-hanging fruit from line items in the mayor's budget and then got his fellow councilors to sign on to his alternative plan, with its increase of about 6 percent.

It sure looks like there's room in the mayoral race for a fiscal conservative. Where do you find a good tax-hating Republican when you need one?

I ran into the mayor on Bank Street this week and got a taste of the bitter tax medicine he wants the whole city to swallow. I didn't see any sign of a willingness to compromise, never one of the mayor's strong suits.

Indeed, the mayor, once he makes up his mind about something, likes to dig in.

I learned this soon after he took office and fired the first black firefighter hired by the city in decades. He steadfastly refused for a long time to reconsider the hasty and unfortunate decision, even while the local NAACP chapter staged noisy protests on the steps of City Hall.

This time the mayor has vowed to veto the Passero budget plan and suggests darkly that he will sharpen his layoff axe if the council overrides his veto.

During our chat on Bank Street, I didn't see even a glimmer of compromise on his 12.5 percent plan. His political isolation on the topic seems worrisome.

The mayor has an inflexible answer for every budget question, even budget items he himself characterizes as cautionary.

When I asked about the $20,000-a-year raises for some department heads Passero cut from the mayor's budget, for instance, the mayor said no raises are planned, that he put the extra money in the budget in case those department heads leave and the city has to hire someone who demands more money.

That strikes me as budget padding, and that's maybe even worse than handing out enormous raises.

I can see how strident the mayor is about his spending agenda.

But I still find the political calculation puzzling.

The mayor must be counting on a big turnout of people who either don't directly pay property taxes, like renters, or homeowners who don't care how much more they pay, the latter surely being a small voter bloc.

The mayor assured me he knows what it is like to struggle to pay the bills, but he is ready to make the sacrifices that will be needed to pay his own higher city tax bills.

He said he's considering pulling the plug on his TV service and might also have to cancel his subscription to The Day.

He added that he won't stop the newspaper, though, until after the election, because he wants to follow the coverage of the race.

I'd like to selfishly suggest he'll miss The Day, whether he wins or loses.

This is the opinion of David Collins

d.collins@theday.com

Twitter: @DavidCollins