Will state ever reduce poverty or just keep manufacturing it?

By CHRIS POWELL

Will the day ever come in Connecticut when those in authority notice that despite all their chest thumping, posturing, sanctimony, and spending, some very big undertakings of government aren’t working? That is, failing to accomplish their nominal objectives while supporting a bureaucracy with great salaries, benefits, and pensions.

Voter registration case is more than an anomaly

Child neglect is vast in Connecticut and DCF may not be so bad

Legislators try blackmailing Yale to save discriminatory admissions policy

Will the day ever come when voters notice that they are always being charged more for policies that don’t work?

Will the day ever come when some aspirant for high office in the state dares to run on a platform of acknowledging and changing what has failed?

It’s not happening yet in this year’s campaign for governor. 

Governor Lamont congratulates himself for having approved all sorts of programs to subsidize the growing number of people who can’t support themselves in what is nearly the most expensive state in the country. But there is no inquiry into Connecticut’s worsening poverty. There is just the shoveling of blame at the Trump administration over, for example, its supposedly outrageous insistence that able-bodied adults without dependents work at least 80 hours per month to earn their food subsidies and medical insurance from the government.

Are modest work requirements for the able-bodied on welfare really so outrageous when the national debt is nearly $40 trillion and unpayable except through more of the inflation that is hobbling the working class?

The governor’s challenger in the Democratic primary, Hamden state Rep. Josh Elliott, envisions a vast expansion of welfare and social-service subsidies to be financed by making “the rich” pay their “fair share,” though “the rich” already produce by far most state income tax revenue. Elliott panders to the simpletons who think the only fair tax is the tax someone else pays, though when someone else pays, those who don’t pay lose interest in government’s effectiveness or the lack of it.

People who don’t feel that they have “skin in the game” lose civic virtue.

Elliott is even more convinced than the governor that throwing more money will perfect society. Yes, more tax revenue might be extracted from “the rich,” but where is the evidence that Connecticut’s decades of throwing money at poverty has reduced it? The state’s cities remain poverty factories churning out dependence faster than money can be thrown at them.

The Republican nominee for governor, Greenwich state Sen. Ryan Fazio, has yet to indicate that he sees a big picture of Connecticut apart from the state’s tax burden. But restraining taxes alone won’t fix Connecticut.

None of the candidates seems to have read last week’s report in Connecticut’s Hearst newspapers that the poverty rate for Black children in the state worsened every year from 2021 to 2024, the most recent year for which data is available, rising from 18% to 28% and erasing a decade of progress in the rate. 

The poverty rate for white children was steady at 5%. For Asian children it fluctuated around 9%, and for Hispanic children it fell steadily from 31% to 24% — which is still distressing.

Few other states, the Hearst report said, suffered as large an increase in Black child poverty.

This should be an issue in November’s elections. 

For example, it might be asked how a welfare system that subsidizes childbearing outside marriage and deprives so many children of fathers helps them become educated, confident, and self-sufficient. 

It might be asked how social promotion, the primary policy of Connecticut schools, helps educate children and enter adulthood with the skills and work ethic needed to get good jobs and achieve self-sufficiency.

Maybe more important, it might be asked whether the candidates or anyone in authority in Connecticut read last year’s study from the University of Virginia that found that the racial performance gaps in education and student behavior, gaps especially severe and disgraceful in Connecticut, are eliminated when fathers live with their children or are deeply involved in their lives.

Politically incorrect as it may be, one conscientious father is worth a hundred social programs, especially if those programs function mainly to sustain the government class.

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

Governor Lamont ignores more misconduct by state police

By CHRIS POWELL

Caught up in his primary campaign for renomination by the Democrats, maybe Governor Lamont and his publicists are too busy to notice and respond to news reports about improprieties in state government. Or maybe they’re just not inclined to call more attention to them, even by correcting them.

Voter registration case is more than an anomaly

Child neglect is vast in Connecticut and DCF may not be so bad

Legislators try blackmailing Yale to save discriminatory admissions policy

But misconduct committed by the state police on the night of July 16 in Stonington and reported July 26 by The Day of New London is outrageous all the same. 

The newspaper’s managing editor, Joe Wojtas, wrote that he was driving past the Mystic Aquarium when he noticed a giant crane and police cruisers blocking the aquarium’s parking lot. So he parked on the street and got out to see what was going on. State police and Stonington officers were on the scene. They were providing an escort for the transfer to the aquarium of a beluga whale from Canada, an activity that sometimes prompts protests. The delivery to the aquarium apparently was being made at night behind a police cordon so it might be concealed from potential protesters.

From curbside — public property, not aquarium property — Wojtas began taking photographs and video with his mobile phone for newspaper use. Then three state troopers started shining their flashlights at him, ruining any images he might take. When he yelled at them, one trooper walked away but the other two continued to obstruct his photography with their flashlights.

Wojtas later complained to a state police publicist, who said he’d try to get an explanation. But none was given. Hence Wojtas’ column in The Day, which asked if this kind of thing is what the public pays the state police for.

For many years Connecticut’s state police have been notoriously unhelpful to journalists seeking timely information. The journalists generally have let the troopers get away with this lest they become even more obstructionist. Now the troopers apparently feel that concealing incidents of public interest and obstructing journalism is indeed part of their job.

Ordinarily the governor might be expected to represent the public interest here and direct the state police commissioner to reprimand the troopers and apologize for their misconduct. But the Lamont administration has been especially contemptuous of state freedom-of-information law, and as the governor seeks renomination, he is relying heavily on the support of the state employee unions. 

The governor’s challenger in the primary, Hamden state Rep. Josh Elliott, isn’t likely to help correct the situation. He is trying to persuade state employees that he will be even more their tool than the governor is.

As for Republican state legislators, including Greenwich state Sen. Ryan Fazio, the party’s nominee for governor, their “law and order” reflexes require them to pander to police officers in nearly all circumstances. It’s hard to imagine any misconduct by police that would prompt criticism from a Republican candidate in Connecticut.

So to answer Wojtas’ question: Yes, this misconduct is what Connecticut pays its state police for, along with some other things. Misconduct is overlooked or minimized. Standards and discipline in state government employment, especially the state police, long have been weak. They may remain weak while journalism remains so reluctant to press state officials for accountability even when journalism itself and the public’s right to know are attacked.

ANOTHER SANCTUARY: Told the other day that federal immigration agents had begun arresting illegal immigrants at Bradley International Airport, the governor dutifully expressed the outrage expected from a Democratic candidate as his party is taken over by the fanatical left.

“Leave these people alone,” the governor said indignantly. 

The Lamont administration already has enacted laws purportedly prohibiting federal immigration agents from making arrests at schools, churches, hospitals, courthouses, and other supposedly sensitive places. Strangely, all other lawbreakers still can be arrested there. Are Connecticut’s airports now to be classified as too sensitive for immigration arrests?

Meanwhile, the governor, Attorney General William Tong, and Democratic state legislators keep denying that Connecticut is a “sanctuary state” even as they lengthen the list of sanctuaries.

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

Voter registration case is more than an anomaly

By CHRIS POWELL

Maybe the illegal immigrant recently hailed as a martyr by Connecticut Democrats, West Hartford businessman Sead “Seyo” Cecunjanin, made an innocent mistake in 2018 when, in a transaction at the state Motor Vehicles Department, he applied to register to vote, falsely affirmed that he is a U.S. citizen, and was improperly added to the town’s voter rolls. 

Child neglect is vast in Connecticut and DCF may not be so bad

Legislators try blackmailing Yale to save discriminatory admissions policy

Tired of mentally ill defendants, courts consider something new

Of course given Cecunjanin’s record — 29 years spent in the United States in violation of a final order of removal for having entered the country illegally on a false passport, plus a second illegal entry — he deserves no benefit of any doubt.

It is illegal for non-citizens to vote, and when West Hartford’s Republican Town Committee exposed Cecunjanin’s improper registration last week and news organizations inquired about it, Connecticut’s secretary of the state’s office resentfully looked into it. While confirming the improper registration, the secretary’s office emphasized that Cecunjanin had never actually voted. His illegal registration, the secretary’s office said, was an anomaly.

Maybe. But how does the secretary’s office or anyone know that it’s an anomaly — know that others among the estimated 125,000 illegal immigrants in Connecticut haven’t also registered to vote? 

No one knows. Worse, no one in authority wants to know.

While it seems unlikely that many non-citizens have registered to vote, since it confers no financial benefit, Connecticut’s registration system invites fraud. Like so much else in state government, it’s never seriously audited. The system requires no proof of citizenship, just an affirmation no one ever checks — and it is widely known that no one ever checks.

Indeed, don’t expect action to be taken against Cecunjanin’s illegal registration, or, now that he has been released from federal custody and is back in West Hartford, expect him to return calls from journalists seeking explanations, though he has told one that he really didn’t register.

While Cecunjanin exploited a weak system, the bigger culprits are those who support it.

Start with the Democrats — members of Congress, state legislators, and a former Hartford mayor — who rallied at West Hartford Town Hall last month to protest Cecunjanin’s arrest by immigration authorities even before they had any idea why he had been arrested. They didn’t care. To Connecticut Democrats, any immigration arrest is wrong.

Then there is the state law engineered by Democrats authorizing special driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, nominally for public safety but actually to facilitate their breaking immigration law, a racket originating in New Haven in 2007 when city government started issuing city identification cards to illegal immigrants to help them pose as legal.

The issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants is responsible for the recent voter registration scandal in New Jersey, where more than 6,000 non-citizens registered and hundreds voted. It is being dismissed as a computer programming error but it’s not. It’s the same policy error Connecticut has made, registering voters without proof of citizenship.  

Then there are the state laws forbidding police from cooperating with federal agents in apprehending immigration lawbreakers and purporting to ban agents from certain locations.

Facilitating illegal immigration and nullifying federal immigration law is state  policy. Connecticut is a “sanctuary state.”

This policy is called humane but it devalues citizenship and inhumanely increases public expense, particularly with medical care for people who can’t legally work and education for children who don’t speak English and need years of instruction in two languages. No one in authority, especially not in New Haven, the center of the state’s open-borders movement, whose schools are falling apart, ever asks how much more bilingual education Connecticut can afford or how much worse the housing shortage should become. When the governor says he welcomes immigrants, he refuses to distinguish between legal and illegal.

President Trump is a demagogue on this issue but Connecticut’s nullifiers are demagogues too. In a Democratic scheme to transform the country’s political complexion, many millions of people have entered illegally in recent years while the law continues to presume that a simple affirmation of citizenship is adequate for voter registration. It’s not anymore.

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

Child neglect is vast in Connecticut and DCF may not be so bad

By CHRIS POWELL

Beating up on Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families is easy and politically satisfying. Child neglect and abuse are rampant and worsening in the state and are beginning to overwhelm the agency’s social workers again, if not yet quite as much as the staff was overwhelmed when it was under federal court supervision from 1991 to 2022.

Legislators try blackmailing Yale to save discriminatory admissions policy

Tired of mentally ill defendants, courts consider something new

Democrats would ‘abolish ICE’ but not illegal immigration

Connecticut’s Hearst newspapers quantified the problem the other day, reporting that the deaths of 62 children in the state since January 2025 came under DCF investigation and the circumstances of about 20 of the children had been reviewed by the agency in some way before they died.

Distressingly, neither DCF nor police have yet offered an explanation of the circumstances around one of those deaths, that of a 3-year-old Manchester girl who was struck and killed by a car as she crossed a thoroughfare unaccompanied at about 4:30 in the morning on June 10. Apparently she is to be officially forgotten.

Three days later Governor Lamont reminded Connecticut that the government has arranged for free meals to be available to all children at various locations throughout the state while schools are on summer recess. As for getting the children to the free meals and back home, the program makes the big assumption that, unlike the Manchester girl, they have competent adult supervision.

It’s not DCF’s fault that Connecticut has thousands of households not competent to take care of their children. Many of these households are fatherless; many are headed by people with mental illness or a drug, alcohol, or gambling addiction, or people who are undereducated and whose ability to make a living doesn’t match the child-raising responsibilities they undertook. Inflation and the rising cost of housing, a large part of which is ever-increasing property taxes — the rising cost of government itself — may keep them from ever getting out of the hole they dug for themselves.

DCF social workers review such circumstances knowing that no children should have to live where household competence is marginal and their health and safety are at risk. But the social workers also know that removing children from such homes risks psychological harm to them and political harm to the agency. The social workers soon learn that their judgments are easily questioned — that they may always be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

It’s not a happy job and many tire of it quickly, just as many teachers in Connecticut’s impoverished cities and inner suburbs are demoralized by the misbehavior of their unparented students and the difficulty of keeping order in their classes. These teachers become eager to leave for positions in towns with better-parented students and higher pay.

It is often said that DCF is broken, and investigation of its most troubling cases typically finds negligence or bad judgment. But if DCF is measured by the breadth of child neglect and abuse in Connecticut, the agency might seem to be an almost miraculous success.

For a good indicator of that neglect and abuse is the rate of chronic student absenteeism in the state’s schools. About 17% of students meet the chronic threshold, missing 10% or more of their classes. That’s about 83,000 students who are neglected at home if not abused too. Chronic absenteeism in the cities, which have more poverty, more danger to children, and a disproportionate number of DCF cases, is closer to 25% or even 30%.

Twenty fatalities in a year and a half in a population of at least 83,000 neglected children constitute a fatality rate of less than three-tenths of 1%, or two-tenths of 1% per year. 

Until Connecticut is ready to remove tens of thousands of neglected children from deficient homes and put them in group homes, modern orphanages, or ready otherwise to address the social disintegration being engendered by the excesses and perverse incentives of the welfare state, how much better can a child-protection agency fairly be expected to do — if it can even keep finding people willing to try to deal with it?

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

Legislators try blackmailing Yale to save discriminatory admissions

By CHRIS POWELL

It shouldn’t be shocking that the U.S. Justice Department is investigating Yale University in New Haven for illegal racial discrimination in its admissions practices. Higher education long has been discriminating that way and helped concoct a euphemism for it — “affirmative action” — a euphemism that fortunately no longer intimidates the Trump administration. 

Tired of mentally ill defendants, courts consider something new

Democrats would ‘abolish ICE’ but not illegal immigration

Why so much special education? And minimum wage bunk

In 2023 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s admissions policy discriminated illegally by race. So it’s a fair issue, and Yale says it is cooperating with the investigation and pursuing a settlement. 

But rather than acknowledge the issue’s legitimacy, some people are getting hysterical. They say academic freedom is at stake, but there is no academic freedom to violate civil rights law.

A group of Yale professors has threatened to sue the university if it reaches a settlement with the government on admissions policy, as if some law says professors can run the university instead of its administration.

And now eight state legislators are actually trying in public to blackmail the university out of considering a settlement. In a letter sent last week to Yale President Maurie McInnis, the legislators said they might try to reduce the university’s state tax exemption if it settles with the Justice Department.

Apparently it’s of no concern to the legislators that the university might be breaking civil rights law and thus be incurring much liability in its governance and finances. 

But there’s an even bigger irony in the legislators’ blackmail. For Yale’s tax exemption should be reduced irrespective of the admissions policy issue, and the General Assembly should have acted accordingly long ago.

About 56% of real estate in New Haven is exempt from city property taxes, and about 43% of that exempt property is owned by the university. The university recently agreed to increase the voluntary annual payment it makes to the city but this amount is a small fraction of the many millions of dollars Yale would pay additionally if its property wasn’t tax-exempt. The university’s tax exemption is a huge burden not just on city government but state government as well, since New Haven is an impoverished city and largely a financial ward of the state.

Of course the university’s contribution to the city and all southern Connecticut — in employment and spending — is huge as well. Indeed, without Yale, New Haven might slide into Long Island Sound.

Nevertheless, Yale’s property tax exemption is just too disproportionate, especially since the university’s endowment, worth around $44 billion, is the second largest university endowment in the country, second only to Harvard’s.

So it’s pathetic that those eight legislators can contemplate doing the right thing on the property tax issue only if can’t coerce Yale into taking a position that, while politically correct, might break federal law and incur great financial and administrative liability.

Historically the university has had a close relationship with government in Connecticut — beginning with the colonial government, which chartered Yale in 1701 and supported it financially in part to educate potential government officials. That close relationship endures insofar as Connecticut’s governor and lieutenant governor still automatically become members of the university’s Board of Trustees. 

Governor Lamont and Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz may not yet have taken their ex-officio trusteeships seriously, but now that those eight legislators — all Democrats, like the governor and lieutenant governor — are using their offices to blackmail the university into breaking federal law, a rebuke from the top of state government may be in order.

* * *

REQUIRE ‘e-VERIFY’: If enforcement of federal immigration law sometimes seems too sudden and cruel, it doesn’t have to be that way. 

Illegal immigration might be stopped quickly in Connecticut if state government required employers to use the federal government’s “e-Verify” system to confirm or deny a job applicant’s eligibility to work in the United States, and if employers hiring illegal immigrants were prosecuted vigorously and punished severely.

But strangely the people who protest the cruelty of immigration law enforcement oppose requiring use of “e-Verify.” They want illegal immigration all the same.

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut overnment and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

Tired of mentally ill defendants, courts consider something new

By CHRIS POWELL

Connecticut’s courts are tired of dealing with criminal defendants who are mentally ill but not criminally insane. State government has a place for the latter sort of criminals: Whiting Forensic Hospital in Middletown. But they are a small subset of the mentally ill, criminals so sick that they are not responsible for themselves. 

Democrats would ‘abolish ICE’ but not illegal immigration

Why so much special education? And minimum wage bunk

Indignation industry triumphs at New London post office

Most criminal defendants who are mentally ill and convicted of serious crimes end up in Connecticut’s prison system — which may be even more tired of dealing with the mentally ill than the courts are. The prisons are full of people from what the politically incorrect past properly called broken homes, people whose upbringing was miserable, who didn’t get a decent education and entered adulthood fit only for menial work, people to whom crime and drug abuse seemed the most practical way of life, and people with learning disabilities.

The prison system does what it can with those people but it’s not terribly effective, since most released prisoners return to crime and are back in prison within a few years even as many released prisoners also return to crime but aren’t caught. 

Connecticut’s courts strive to avoid putting people in prison, knowing how prison can damage and handicap troublesome people even more. But the state is full of repeat offenders who should have been locked up permanently after multiple convictions, and at some point the public simply has to be protected. The public is not as protected against repeat offenders as it should be, but prison is expensive and most legislators and governors have preferred to have the public pay for repeat offenders by enduring more crimes than pay with taxes for imprisoning more criminals.

So since the governor and General Assembly seem indifferent to the mental illness problem faced by the courts and prisons, the Judicial Department has bravely undertaken to try to do something about it on its own.

This month Chief Justice Raheem L. Mullins announced a committee to plan the creation of an experimental “behavioral health court” to be based in New Haven and potentially expanded statewide.

The committee will include judges, police officials, medical and addiction experts, educators, and people who have gone through mental illness and addiction themselves. One of the judges, Dan Klau, lost a daughter to drug addiction and mental illness, and not for lack of trying to help her. Indeed, nearly everyone knows someone who is mentally ill or addicted; the problem is getting worse in Connecticut even as state government, in its relentless pursuit of tax revenue, increasingly facilitates drug and gambling addiction.

Mentally ill or addicted people “might initially come to court for minor incidents,” the chief justice says. “However, without proper intervention, their conduct can spiral out of control, especially if they choose to self-medicate with alcohol or illegal drugs. Our goal is to triage these individuals and get them help before they inflict irreparable harm on themselves or someone else.”

The chief justice hasn’t defined a particular format for the behavioral health court, leaving that to the committee. Getting people “the help they need” is a cliché that needs definition too. 

There are many other questions. Judges already have great discretion in sentencing and can condition sentences and probations on a defendant’s cooperation with various treatments, but how well do they work? If judges made enough use of their discretion in sentencing the mentally ill and addicted, and if enough treatment was available and worked, would a behavioral health court be needed?

Would a behavioral health court be just another mechanism of what state law euphemizes as “accelerated rehabilitation,” the gradual erasure of a defendant’s responsibility, and the release of more repeat offenders? Who would audit the results of the court to prevent it from becoming such a mechanism? How much would the court cost, and, if it worked, how much might it save?

The committee should answer these questions. In any case it aims to confront a longstanding disaster the rest of state government has been happy to overlook. 

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

Democrats would ‘abolish ICE’ but not illegal immigration

By CHRIS POWELL

Most Democratic candidates for high office in Connecticut are pledging to seek to abolish the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. “Abolish ICE” or “Stop ICE” appears on much of their campaign material.

Why so much special education? And minimum wage bunk

Indignation industry triumphs at New London post office

Bronin didn’t fix Hartford; and ‘fair’ just means ‘more’

But the Democrats don’t say whether and how, once ICE is abolished, the federal government should continue to try to control the country’s borders and the admittance of foreigners, nor whether anything should be done to apprehend and deport people who have entered the country illegally. Fortunately for the Democrats, journalists don’t ask them about this.

The Democrats’ implication with “abolish ICE” and “stop ICE” is that everyone who entered the country illegally and has not made too much trouble should receive an amnesty. Their euphemism is a “path to citizenship.” But they are not pressed about this either.

Ever timid on bigger issues, Connecticut’s Republican candidates don’t address these questions either, thereby encouraging journalists to keep failing to put critical questions to the Democrats, who run the government here.

It is especially telling that no Democratic candidates purporting to want to “stop ICE” ever call for stopping illegal immigration itself. So it may be fairly assumed that most Democratic candidates don’t mind illegal immigration or that they even tacitly support it for the advantage it promises their party in state and congressional redistricting.

Yes, immigration law enforcement sometimes involves violence, and some incidents have been fatal. ICE agents sometimes act without restraint — just as ordinary police officers sometimes do. But many of these violent incidents have involved resistance and obstruction to immigration enforcement, and not just resistance and obstruction by people who entered the country illegally but also by people whose politics compels them to get in the way. 

Indeed, many if not most of the fatalities in immigration law enforcement have involved challenges to or attacks on immigration agents made by people looking for trouble, people who seem to figure that if enough trouble is made, the federal government will give up on enforcing the law and return to the previous administration’s policy of open borders.

Holding all important offices in Connecticut, Democrats are obliged to answer for themselves. They may be glad that they are seldom asked to.

* * *

Politics has always been largely a matter of striking poses rather than getting important things done, but the other day Governor Lamont, Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz, and state Treasurer Erik Russell provided an especially extreme example of empty posturing. They called a press conference to announce state government’s activation of what is being called a “safe harbor” fund to be drawn upon by people in other states who want to come to Connecticut for abortions and sex-change therapy they can’t get at home. 

The fund would pay for travel, lodging, and the medical procedures themselves. It has received no state appropriation but has been opened with $25,000 in outside donations from advocates of abortion and sex-change therapy, with more donations hoped for. While the governor, lieutenant governor, and treasurer seem to think that abortion and sex-change therapy are always good, even when they involve fetuses capable of surviving outside the womb and children undergoing irreversible surgery, the outside donations will allow state officials to distance themselves a little from treatments that will offend some people. 

But state money still will be involved when the “safe haven” fund finances abortions and sex-change therapy for minors, at least insofar as the treasurer’s office will administer the fund. So if state government is going to facilitate discretionary medical treatment for out-of-staters, it is fairly asked why this is being done when so many people in Connecticut, including children, don’t yet have access to important medical care. 

Indirectly acknowledging this lack of medical care for the state’s own residents, commercials for the governor’s re-election campaign proclaim his support for “universal health care.” If “universal health care” for state residents is so compelling, facilitating abortion and sex-change therapy for out-of-staters is not. It’s just politically correct, a pander to the ever more extreme political left.

—

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

-END-

Why so much special education? And minimum wage bunk

By CHRIS POWELL

Connecticut is facing another expensive anomaly. The state’s Hearst newspapers report that while public school enrollment has fallen substantially since 2006, from 578,500 to 498,000 students, a decline of 14%, students receiving “special education” — students who have intellectual and physical disabilities — have increased by 39%, from 68,500 to 95,000.

Indignation industry triumphs at New London post office

Bronin didn’t fix Hartford; and ‘fair’ just means ‘more’

Can Elliott make waste and fraud an issue in primary for governor?

According to the Hearst report, the percentage the increase in Connecticut’s special education population is larger than the increase in most states.

Special education requires schools to develop individual education plans for each student and usually to provide additional services on top of that. Since special-ed students are found disproportionately in the schools of poorer municipalities, and since state government only partially reimburses special-ed costs, the burden on those schools and municipalities is heavy and drives up local property taxes.  

What’s going on?

Authorities on special education surmise that it’s a matter of more advanced diagnosis — that health conditions that would not have been noticed years ago are now being diagnosed and susceptible to treatment. Such has been the case with other ailments over the years.

But the extreme disparity between the decline in public school enrollment and the increase in special education diagnosis — enrollment down 14% and special education cases up 39% in 20 years — suggests that something else is at work as well.

Child neglect and abuse and chronic student absenteeism also have worsened substantially in Connecticut in recent decades, disproportionately in the same places where special education cases have increased — the impoverished cities and inner suburbs. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but where households are poor, children live with only one parent, and parenting is weak — common conditions in the cities and inner suburbs — physical and mental impairments may not be as readily noticed and treatment not as readily sought. 

So it is fair to suspect that the explosion in special education costs is part of the price society is paying for welfare policy’s destruction of the family.

At least Governor Lamont now concedes that it might be best for state government to assume all municipal costs of special education. That would be an excellent form of progressive tax relief, if the savings on the municipal level weren’t just quickly diverted to increased compensation for unionized municipal employees. 

Even so, how extreme must the increase in special education expenses get before state government formally asks itself, as through a legislative investigation: Where are all the troubled and handicapped children coming from?

* * *

Connecticut U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy seem to think they have the solution for the country’s worsening poverty. Their Living Wage for All Act would raise the federal minimum wage to $25 per hour for large employers by 2032 and for all others by 2039.

Business people and others who inhabit the real world can only wince at this.

For Blumenthal and Murphy don’t propose to regulate the other expenses of business, expenses that bear on what businesses can afford to pay their employees. Nor can Blumenthal and Murphy guarantee that any employee will produce $25 an hour in value for his employer. The legislation has been ridiculed as a vast government subsidy to the robot design and manufacturing industry.

But there may not be much reason to take the legislation seriously. Blumenthal and Murphy may be just striking another pose to ingratiate themselves with the political left. For since the national debt keeps rising fast and there is no political will to curb it, the debt will keep being paid with the tax called inflation, and so by 2032 and especially by 2039 even $25 per hour may be a poverty wage.

Indeed, the best thing government could do for the working class would be to stop inflation.

The silly premise of the Blumenthal-Murphy legislation is the premise of the slogan that often appears on union picket line signs: “One job should be enough.” Yes, that would be nice. But any one job? Then what would be the incentive to increase one’s work skills after high school?

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

-END-

Indignation industry triumphs at New London’s post office

By CHRIS POWELL

Connecticut has been just about conquered by the indignation industry, as was indicated again the other day when the post office in New London inadvertently offended a customer — the president of the city’s chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — because its doorbell chime happened to play, among other songs, a few bars from “Dixie” during the Juneteenth holiday weekend. The customer complained that “Dixie” is racist because it was sung in minstrel shows and was adopted as an anthem by secessionists during the Civil War.

Bronin didn’t fix Hartford; and ‘fair’ just means ‘more’

Can Elliott make waste and fraud an issue in primary for governor?

Poll finds strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction with Lamont

Instantly intimidated, the post office got rid of the chime’s “Dixie” melody. But the complaint was just a matter of guilt by association.

There is nothing racist about “Dixie.” Its lyrics are a simple celebration of the South. Many inoffensive songs originated with or were popularized by minstrel shows. While secessionists adopted “Dixie,” they weren’t the only ones who liked it. It was written by a Northerner prior to secession, first became popular in the North, and the great liberator himself, the destroyer of slavery — Abraham Lincoln — declared it a favorite song.

At the White House on the day after the surrender of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, the president told a serenading crowd: “I have always thought ‘Dixie’ one of the best tunes I have ever heard. Our adversaries over the way attempted to appropriate it, but I insisted yesterday that we fairly captured it. I presented the question to the attorney general, and he gave it as his legal opinion that it is our lawful prize. I now request the band to favor me with its performance.”

The band did so, and the song is still enjoyed by people of good will even if some people of bad will might like to make hateful use of it.

Music and lyrics can stand on their own. 

Francis Scott Key, author of the “The Star-Spangled Banner,” the poem that, set to an old British melody, became the U.S. national anthem, was a slave owner and as federal attorney for the District of Columbia persecuted abolitionists. But there is nothing racist in his poem, which, if somewhat ironically in light of the author’s background, proclaims “the land of the free.”

The German composer Richard Wagner hated Jews. But he is associated with hatred of Jews less because of his operas, which are not explicitly anti-Jewish, than because Adolf Hitler fervently promoted the composer’s work as part of the Nazi movement. Even today performing Wagner’s operas is informally banned in Israel.

Mark Twain joked that Wagner’s music “is better than it sounds.” Twain might agree that while the melody and lyrics of “Dixie” are better than the politics of some people who liked them or still do, the singer and the songwriter are not necessarily the song.

Besides, to live in Connecticut and be offended by a few bars from “Dixie” played by the post office door chime may require one to be almost blind to many worse things. Even as the controversy in New London was developing, a national survey reported that Connecticut is among the most racially and economically segregated states. The racial performance gap in the state’s schools long has been notorious, along with the state’s big racial disproportions in poverty, housing, crime, imprisonment, and health.

Ever preening in self-righteousness, political correctness celebrates its intimidation and shaming of people who have meant and done no harm. So it might have been better if a postal clerk in New London had dared to tell the customer who complained about the door chime that Juneteenth is not what it is said to be — the anniversary of the end of slavery in the United States — but just a P.C. contrivance, since slavery actually continued in the United States for six months beyond June 1865 until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6. That’s the day for celebration, with “Dixie” on the musical program, as it was for Lincoln.          

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

Bronin didn’t fix Hartford; and ‘fair’ just means ‘more’

By CHRIS POWELL

What’s the point of former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin’s candidacy for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Connecticut’s 1st Congressional District?

Of course Bronin’s immediate objective is to defeat the incumbent Democrat he is challenging in a primary, U.S. Rep. John B. Larson, who has represented the district since 1999. But why must Larson be replaced when the 1st District will elect a Democrat again no matter who wins the party’s nomination?

Can Elliott make waste and fraud an issue in primary for governor?

Poll finds strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction with Lamont

Will Connecticut have a campaign or just Lamont’s commercials?

Bronin doesn’t say Larson is wrong on any issue important to Democrats. The two agree on nearly everything, the more so every day as they pander to the extreme liberals expected to constitute the most voters in the primary. 

The problem with Larson, Bronin says, is that, at 77, he is old and tired, though Larson has been campaigning furiously after being shocked by Bronin’s challenge. President Trump “is out of control,” Bronin says, but Democrats “keep doing the same thing. We need to bring a whole new kind of energy to this fight.”

But what exactly should Democrats do differently? Bronin doesn’t say. He implies that it would be enough just to elect him and thereby discard Larson’s great seniority in Congress on the eve of regaining a Democratic majority in the House.

Bronin is well-connected to wealthy Democrats around the country, probably will raise more campaign money than Larson by primary day, and is doing a lot of advertising emphasizing what he sees as his successes as mayor of Hartford from 2016 to 2024. Hartford has had worse mayors but the claim of some of Bronin’s advertising — particularly the claim that he “straightened out a bankrupt city” — is ridiculous.

A $500 million bailout from state government, not Bronin’s adept administration, is what kept Hartford out of the bankruptcy that might have been the best way to straighten out the city. Even as Bronin’s television commercial with the “straightened out” claim was airing last week, Hartford was making the same old distressing news.

A story in Connecticut’s Hearst newspapers was headlined: “About 50 gunshots fired in Hartford early on Fourth of July, police say.”

The Connecticut Mirror had this headline: “Police escort former Hartford treasurer off city property.” She had resigned abruptly amid suspicion of scandal.

With wonderful irony Bronin’s “straightened out” commercial was inserted into a report on the internet site of WTNH-TV8 in New Haven that was headlined: “2 dead, teen injured in stabbing, shooting in Hartford.”

Of course Hartford hasn’t been “straightened out” any more than Connecticut’s other cities have been. They are still, by design, poverty factories with little capacity for self-government. It’s a problem of demographics, the concentration and perpetuation of poverty by welfare and education policies. 

Bronin and the other mayors aren’t to blame for that problem. But only Bronin is pretending to have solved it, and only he has used his mayoralty mainly to advance himself politically.

Doing “something different” for the Democrats would start with regaining the House majority. So why should the party be spending millions to determine a nomination in a district sure to elect a Democrat again anyway? Why not spend the money in competitive districts where the next majority will be decided?

Is Bronin’s ambition more important than that?   

* * *

Democratic campaigns in Connecticut and throughout the country are tedious for their clichéd calls to make “the rich” pay their “fair share” of taxes. Governor Lamont and his challenger in the Democratic primary for governor, Hamden state Rep. Josh Elliott, are working this cliché very hard.

But exactly who are “the rich,” exactly what is the “fair share,” and how is it to be calculated? 

Everyone agrees that “billionaires” constitute some of “the rich,” but candidates are seldom clear about who else might make that infamous cut. No one explains the criteria for calculating a “fair share.” 

That’s because as a practical matter “fair share” is just the Democrats’ euphemism for “more,” and a proper calculation is impossible, because if “fair” was ever achieved, higher taxation would be foreclosed as unfair.

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)