Waterbury child-abuse case imperiled by local TV news

By Chris Powell

While local television news in Connecticut is usually trivial and patronizing, it isn’t always harmless. In recent days it has been creating a great danger with its coverage of the case of the 32-year-old man alleged to have been held prisoner since boyhood by his stepmother at their home in Waterbury.

Connecticut’s most-neglected children are public-schooled, not home-schooled

Connecticut leads Trump in privatizing government

Can Murphy and other Democrats discern yet why Trump won?

Last week TV stations were covering the story incessantly though there were no significant developments. The stepmother remained charged criminally and free on bond. But some TV coverage included interviews with people who proclaimed her guilt and denounced her though they had no original knowledge of the case.

It’s typical for local TV news reporters to stick a microphone in the faces of people having no original knowledge of what is being reported and to ask them for comment. These bystanders dutifully concur that awful events are awful, adding nothing to the story but sparing the reporter the trouble of finding someone who does have some original knowledge and is willing to talk.

Broadcasting such coverage day after day without adding new information is horribly defamatory and there may be no recovering from it. Last week the stepmother’s lawyer waxed indignant about it, complaining that it had already convicted his client in the public mind prior to the fair trial to which she is entitled.

If the case is not resolved by a plea bargain and goes to trial, the defendant’s lawyer almost certainly will request a change of venue from court in Waterbury. But there may be no place in the state where a court can find jurors who aren’t already prejudiced against the defendant. Such prejudice can drag out a case, weaken the prosecution, and facilitate a plea bargain more favorable to the defendant than a trial would be.

This doesn’t mean that sensational criminal cases shouldn’t get news coverage. It means that they shouldn’t get disproportionate coverage — that when there is nothing new to report, reiteration is unnecessary and unfair, just piling on, and that speculation on a defendant’s guilt should not be reported at all.

News is telling people what they don’t know, not what they have heard many times, and there is always plenty of important local news to report. Local TV news sometimes is capable of finding it, as WFSB-TV3 in Hartford did admirably last week as it disclosed the steadily worsening response times of the two ambulance companies serving Hartford, incompetence that may have led to the death of a child.

The Waterbury child abuse case may continue for a long time. Connecticut doesn’t need it to become the local equivalent of the death watch that 50 years ago national TV news maintained for months for Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, a death watch that went on so long that the first season of “Saturday Night Live” was able to parody it with great success on its “Weekend Update” segment: “Franco still dead.”

When the Waterbury stepmother goes to trial or enters a plea, it won’t be a secret. The prosecution and defense will have something new to say. Until then local TV news should try to find some news.

STILL FAILING ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: For many years women’s rights advocates and some state legislators in Connecticut have prattled about the state’s failure to take domestic violence seriously. State policy still considers court-issued “protective orders” to be adequate, though nearly every woman murdered by her former lover seems to die clutching one.

Connecticut still doesn’t realize that the only defense for women against domestic violence is speedy justice, though another proof of the necessity of speedy justice was apparent last week when a New London police officer was charged for the fourth time with harassing his former girlfriend and disregarding another useless protective order. 

The officer was jailed only after his third arrest, and then only because he couldn’t make bond. Why didn’t he get a trial immediately after his first or second arrest? Women’s rights advocates and legislators should knock off the prattle and ask.

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

-END-

Connecticut’s most neglected children are public-schooled, not home-schooled

By Chris Powell

Connecticut has just seen another case, this time in Waterbury, of what appears to have been the horrific abuse of a child who had been withdrawn from school, supposedly to be educated at home, but who wasn’t being educated at all, just abused.

Connecticut leads Trump in privatizing government

Can Murphy and other Democrats discern yet why Trump won?

Political correctness flusters response to assault in school

Past cases of child abuse that were concealed by false claims of home schooling got some attention from the General Assembly a few years ago but no action. The state Department of Children and Families is said to have looked into the Waterbury child’s situation twice at his home many years ago but not to have found any abuse, and no one in authority checked on the boy again. Last month, having turned 32 and weighing only 68 pounds, the young man sought attention by setting a fire in his room and was rescued by firefighters. 

His stepmother faces serious criminal charges.

The House chairman of the legislature’s Committee on Children, state Rep. Corey Paris, D-Stamford, says the Waterbury case shows the need to make sure “no child falls off the radar.” Paris wants to gather the state agencies involved with child protection to consider what must be done to prevent claims of home schooling from concealing neglect and abuse.

It is a compelling issue, since child neglect and abuse cause the nation’s worst social problems — generational poverty, educational failure, alienation, and physical and mental illness.

But of course the problem isn’t home schooling itself but government’s failure to ensure that children who are not attending public school are really being educated and raised properly. 

Remedying that problem wouldn’t be complicated. Parents home-schooling their children could be required to register with the state and to present their children every year to take an academic proficiency test. Such parents also could be required to accept a visit at home from child protection workers every year or two. Those workers could intervene against neglect or abuse.

Such accountability might be resented by home-schooling parents, and it might be expensive, since as many as 20,000 Connecticut families may be educating their children at home. The potential resentment and expense are probably why the legislature has not yet pressed the issue. But as child neglect and abuse proliferate, there may be no other way of checking on children who don’t attend school.

Resentment of such a system by home-schooling parents would be fair, for they would find themselves being held accountable by a government that grossly neglects tens of thousands of children in its own schools but never holds itself accountable for educational failure. Indeed, neglect of children in public schools is far more common than neglect of home-schooled children.

Last September Hartford was found to have graduated from high school a girl who could not read or write. For the six months since then city school administrators and the state Education Department have just shrugged it off. But following disclosure of the Hartford graduate’s illiteracy, current and former teachers throughout the state admitted confidentially that advancement from grade to grade and graduation of grossly uneducated students are common in Connecticut, especially in the cities, since the state’s only firm policy of public education is social promotion and since a quarter to half of city students lack parenting and are chronically absent.

If a law is enacted to regulate home-schooling, presumably home-schooled children would have to meet a certain achievement standard on state proficiency tests. But state government and municipal governments don’t dare to enforce any proficiency test standards with public school students. The results of the few proficiency tests Connecticut requires to be given in its public schools suggest that if any proficiency standards were enforced, more than half the students would have to be held back every year until word got around that social promotion was over and henceforth learning would be required for advancement and graduation.

This is the spectacular irony of the home-schooling issue: Children in public school are far more neglected than children schooled at home, yet no one in authority will consider doing anything about it.

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

-END-

Connecticut leads Trump in privatizing government

By Chris Powell

Democrats throughout the country, including Connecticut U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, are charging that the Trump administration wants to privatize government. By “privatize” the Democrats really mean that the Trump administration is cutting off their vast patronage from the federal government, as if elections mustn’t be allowed to change things. 

Can Murphy and other Democrats discern yet why Trump won?

Political correctness flusters response to assault in school

Plenty of ideas for taxes but few for economizing

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has acknowledged a desire to strengthen the national economy by enlarging the private sector while shrinking the federal government. That’s a good objective, and shrinking the government is quite different from privatizing it. 

Besides, to a great extent the federal government long has been privatized under both Democratic and Republican administrations, with major industries achieving “regulatory capture” and government failing to enforce antitrust law vigorously.

Despite the complaints from Connecticut Democrats about “privatizing” government, the state has led the country in privatizing government in a crucial respect: education.

This privatization has occurred not with charter schools and vouchers redeemable at church and other private schools but with ordinary laws that hobble administration of public schools.

Connecticut’s teacher tenure law is so strict and its processes so expensive that few teachers are ever fired. Now the state’s teacher unions are advocating legislation to make firing teachers even more difficult. The legislation would require a school administration to have “just cause” for firing a teacher, not just the “due and sufficient” cause now required. A “just cause” requirement would impose more impediments on schools and take the firing decisions away from a school board and place them with an arbiter.

Meanwhile binding arbitration for teacher union contracts gives the unions great control over teacher salaries and working conditions, again diminishing the authority of school boards. 

A state law demanded by the unions 50 years ago exempts teacher evaluations from disclosure under state freedom-of-information law, the only government employee evaluations so exempted. In Connecticut you have no right to know how well your child’s teachers are performing.

That is, the big problem with public education in Connecticut is that it really isn’t public at all. It has no accountability. It has been privatized by the people it employs.

Ironically, charter and church schools are far more accountable, since, unlike public schools, they have no guarantee of students. To stay in business, private schools have to be better than public schools, which get more money each year regardless of performance.

DEMOCRATS AGAINST DEMOCRACY: Many Democrats in Connecticut prattle about saving democracy from the Trump administration, but some of those Democrats also are advocating a state constitutional amendment that would sharply curtail democracy.

It’s being called the environmental rights amendment, and it would establish “an individual right to clean and healthy air, water, soil, ecosystems, and environment, and a safe and stable climate.”

Exactly how clean and healthy, safe and stable would Connecticut have to be? The amendment doesn’t say.

So in the absence of clear definitions in the constitutional amendment, law, or regulations, lawsuits would ask the courts to produce the definitions. The environmental rights amendment would invite many lawsuits to establish public policy. Courts also would be asked to determine how violations of “clean and healthy” and “safe and stable” would be remediated, and the means and costs of remediation.

Thus the governor and General Assembly — the elected branches of government — would be relieved of their responsibilities by the unelected branch, the judiciary, as every claim made on behalf of a “clean and healthy” and “safe and stable” environment would be dressed up as a constitutional right.

The amendment is platitudinous and politically correct posturing, wishful thinking, and reckless government.

Like most other undertakings of government, environmental protection requires a lot more than platitudes and posturing. It requires the continuous balancing of interests, attention to changing details, and compromise — the essence of democracy. So if Connecticut really wants to put the judiciary in charge of the environment, it should add another amendment to its constitution: to elect the state’s judges every two years, just like state legislators, since the judges will be the state’s new legislators.

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

-END-

Can Murphy and other Democrats discern yet why Trump won?

By Chris Powell

Having told the country last year that Joe Biden was as sharp as ever mentally and deserved another four years as president and that a new law with gaping holes in it was needed to control the border, Connecticut U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy now is aspiring to the Democratic Party’s national leadership. He wants his party to start by obstructing President Trump at every turn — including Trump’s having nearly halted illegal immigration just by threatening mass deportations. 

Political correctness flusters response to assault in school

Plenty of ideas for taxes but few for economizing

A sanctimony city and a sanctimony state milk politics for patronage

Murphy would have liked to thwart Trump this month by preventing passage of another temporary federal budget, thereby closing much of the federal government — ironically, closing far more of the government than Trump and his chainsaw-wielding aide Elon Musk have undertaken to close, thereby outraging Murphy and most other Democrats.

Trump’s slashing away is reckless, making little attempt to distinguish the necessary from the unnecessary, but at least it has shown that most of the work of the federal government has become the distribution of money, much of it borrowed and distributed to Democrats and their allies. This is what most of the Democratic shrieking is about — their loss of government patronage, not any threat to the country.

Most telling may be the Democratic hysteria over Trump’s desire to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. 

The department was created in 1979 during the Carter administration as a reward to the teacher unions for their long support of the Democratic Party. The department lately has been spending $268 billion annually, most being distributed as grants to states and municipal governments. Trump says the money will continue to flow via other agencies, but whether it flows or not is not the important question. The important question is: What has the Education Department accomplished?

Judging by student proficiency tests, the department has presided over the utter collapse of public education. Somehow schools produced far more educated students before the department was created, the teacher unions took charge, and federal money began to deluge the schools. 

Mainly the department has sustained a massive bureaucracy of federal, state, and municipal employees who call themselves educators even as there is ever less education to go around.

Senator Murphy would not have to travel far to evaluate the department’s results. He could stick to Hartford, where Mayor Arunan Arulampalam said the other day the city’s schools get $28 million a year from the department and would be ruined without the money. But despite all that money, most Hartford students never master the basics. 

Last September a recent Hartford Public High School graduate sensationally confessed her inability to read and write. It should have been a much bigger scandal. Hartford’s school superintendent and the state education commissioner said they would investigate but have reported nothing, and despite its heavy investment in Hartford’s schools, the U.S. Education Department took no notice at all. 

Nor did Senator Murphy. 

That’s because Hartford and all the other cities with educational results that should be horrifying are Democratic fiefdoms. That they are fiefdoms of failure doesn’t matter. All that matters is that Democrats own them and collect the rent.

So what should the Democrats stand for besides rage over Trump’s taking their patronage away? The Democrats remain the party of open borders, transgenderism, racial preferences, manufacturing and coddling poverty, poking the Russian bear on its own doorstep, censorship, cancel culture, and indifference to the results of their policies.

Recent polls show the party with its lowest approval ever — lower even than the approval for the Republican Party and Trump himself.

Connecticut is so heavily Democratic that the party’s leaders here can survive without caring about results and without appreciating contrary opinion in the rest of the country. But any Democrats who aspire to national leadership must take broader opinion into account.

Such Democrats might start by asking: How could someone of Donald Trump’s character and recklessness be elected president a second time? As they ask that question, Democrats should be standing in front of a mirror.  

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

-END-

Political correctness flusters response to assault in school

By Chris Powell

Three principles of Connecticut’s political correctness have collided sensationally in Waterbury, where two middle school students recently assaulted two other students. The victims, twin 13-year-old sisters new to the school, are of Arab descent and wore Muslim hijabs that were ripped off, so the alleged perpetrators, ages 12 and 11, are suspected of religious or ethnic prejudice. That would make the assault a “hate crime,” and a political fuss is being made about it.

Plenty of ideas for taxes but few for economizing

A sanctimony city and a sanctimony state milk politics for patronage

Where did the parents go? And is poverty forever?

Children are often cruel and stupid and pick on others simply for being different. So it’s just as plausible that the assault was motivated by ordinary cruelty and stupidity rather than any serious animus toward religion or ethnicity. Waterbury police are investigating and maybe they’ll find out, though the public may not be told, because of those colliding principles of political correctness.

Those principles are:

1) Perpetrators of “hate crime” should be more severely punished than perpetrators of ordinary crime because ordinary enforcement of criminal law doesn’t demonstrate political correctness.

2) Short of murder, children misbehaving in school shouldn’t be charged criminally or even punished at all, just referred to social work.

3) Crime by juveniles should be handled secretly so there can never be any accountability for them or the government.

The collapse of discipline in public education argues for serious and visible punishment of students who commit assault — something more ominous than the Waterbury middle school principal’s squishy statement about “respect, inclusivity, and kindness,” something requiring suspension from school and reparations to the victims.

But in the end little can be done with 11- and 12-year-olds except to watch them grow up. School authorities should be held to account but the “hate crime” crowd should can its bluster.

CANNIBAL WATCH: Questions posed by Republican state senators to the state Psychiatric Security Review Board about the murderer-cannibal the board recently paroled have turned out to be good ones.

In response last week, the board’s executive director, Vanessa Cardella, confirmed that despite the heavy supervision the parolee is receiving at the group home where he has been placed — six state employees or contractors are keeping an eye on him — he still will have plenty of time to be out and about on his own. Cardella didn’t know how much the supervisors will be paid for working on the parolee’s case, but it seems likely to be many thousands of dollars a year.

Most people may not understand the necessity for the murderer-cannibal’s parole and its expense. Indeed, they may be shocked and appalled. But they shouldn’t blame the board, for it is only following the law, which calls for the perpetrator’s release if the board thinks he’ll be fine if he adheres to the conditions of his parole, which include medication.

Of course there can be no guarantee. Serious risk to the public will continue, which is why a better outcome would have been to keep the man residing in a comfortable room at the state’s high-security mental hospital. This probably would be less expensive as well.

But that better outcome requires changing the law about acquittals by reason of insanity. The law simply shouldn’t allow release of murderers prior to their old age. Republican legislators, a small minority in the General Assembly, should submit such legislation even though the Democratic majority will reject it. For at least then some Democrats may be asked to explain why people should feel good about the outcome of the murderer-cannibal’s case.

THE PERFECT TAX: A recent study by the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services found that people addicted to gambling constitute less than 2% of Connecticut’s population but produce more than half the state’s sports betting revenue and a fifth of its revenue from all forms of gambling.

While the department sees this as a problem with a huge human cost, elected officials see it as a political solution — the perfect tax. A tiny and disparaged minority finances a disproportionate share of state government and that human cost is not on state government’s books.

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

-END-

Plenty of ideas for taxes but few for economizing

By Chris Powell

Members of the Democratic majority in the General Assembly have a new tax idea. They would impose a 28-cent tax on every delivery of a retail product. Anything that comes to your door from Amazon, Walmart, UPS, Federal Express, Door Dash, pizza shops, and other restaurants would be charged. 

A sanctimony city and a sanctimony state milk politics for patronage

Where did the parents go? And is poverty forever?

‘Mean’ is not an argument in transgender controversy

The idea is copied from Colorado, which has imposed such a tax to raise money for transportation infrastructure. Connecticut’s Special Transportation Fund is said to be in good shape but the Democrats are concerned that it may be drained in a few years — a fair concern if the Democrats continue to control the state.

But since money is “fungible” — that is, easily moved around — there is no guaranteeing that it will end up being applied as advertised. The delivery tax revenue might continue to be placed in the transportation fund but other revenue now deposited to the fund might be diverted.

Democratic legislators are proposing at least two other dedicated taxes: a tax on telephone lines to replenish a workers’ compensation fund for firefighters with cancer, and a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to finance free meals for public school students.

The Yankee Institute’s Connecticut Inside Investigator reports that the state already imposes a dedicated tax on certain medical insurance policies. The tax helps finance the state Insurance Department, the state Office of Health Strategy, the Office of the Healthcare Advocate, and certain government health initiatives. It’s not clear why medical insurance policies, already so expensive, should be made still more expensive with a tax. Nor is it clear why this tax should apply to some medical insurance policies but not others. 

Did legislators think that they more easily could get away with taxing medical insurance policies if the tax didn’t apply to everyone’s policies?

Democratic legislators say they’re just studying the retail delivery tax. Well, of course — every tax starts as a study. What is more disturbing is what is not being studied by the General Assembly: the efficiency and priorities of state government.

Legislators seem happy to leave to Governor Lamont any initiatives to reduce spending, so the governor is taking the heat for noting that the state colleges and universities system should economize as enrollments decline. 

The governor also is taking heat for noting that as the Trump administration rampages through the federal government with Elon Musk’s chainsaw, Connecticut should be extremely cautious financially as federal financial aid is likely to be cut. While the governor is a Democrat, only members of the small Republican minority in the legislature seem to have appreciated his warning.

Many compelling human needs in Connecticut are not being met even as state government remains full of inessential and overgenerous appropriations. It is a fair suspicion that, forced down to its last several hundred million dollars, state government would spend them all on raises for its unionized employees.

A perfect political system for Connecticut in its current circumstances would go far beyond the controversial “fiscal guardrails” now being subverted. It would require reducing state government spending by 5% each year for five years. For eventually this would induce the people clamoring to spend more on the human needs that seem compelling to them to begin scrutinizing the budget for items that are not so compelling and could be canceled. That is, a perfect political system for Connecticut would require people who consider themselves liberals to become liberals and show some respect to the private sector, which pays for all government.

Instead what passes for liberalism in Connecticut is mainly whining, like the complaint the other day from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities that state financial assistance to cities and towns isn’t keeping up with inflation. CCM doesn’t seem to have noticed that most private-sector incomes haven’t kept up with inflation either even as government-sector incomes have kept up just fine.

If municipal officials don’t want to keep asking their constituents for property tax increases, they should stop whining and pursue efficiency in government — that is, making choices more in the public interest.

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

-END-

A sanctimony city and a sanctimony state milk politics for patronage

By Chris Powell

Two more tedious but true tales from the Sanctimony City and the Sanctimony State unfolded last week.

In New Haven dozens of people gathered at Trinity Church on the city’s green to mark the 200th anniversary of the last recorded sale of slaves in the city and Connecticut — two women who were paraded to the green and purchased by an abolitionist who eventually set them free. Last week’s gathering called itself a “service of lamentation and healing.”

Where did the parents go? And is poverty forever?

‘Mean’ is not an argument in transgender controversy

Rent control won’t build the housing Connecticut needs

Meanwhile at the state Capitol a legislative committee considered a resolution to condemn the Treaty of Hartford of 1638, which marked the end of the war between the Pequot Indian tribe and its adversaries — the English, Mohegan, and Narragansett tribes. The war killed most of the Pequots and the treaty sought to nullify the few who were left, bestowing them on their adversaries as slaves and prohibiting the tribe’s reconstitution.

Last week’s events implied that modern society bears some enduring guilt for the abominations of centuries past. Indeed, establishing this guilt seems to have been the political objective. This was mistaken and ironic.

Americans like to believe in their country’s exceptionalism, but slavery was and remains a worldwide phenomenon going back millennia and transcending nations and races. The slaves brought to the United States and delivered to white masters had been sold first in west Africa by other Black people. To some extent slavery continues today in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. 

So in the larger context Connecticut’s connection to slavery may be more remarkable for the efforts to overthrow it than to sustain it. In any case no country ever fought a more devastating war to destroy slavery than the United States did.

But even as New Haveners gathered to “lament” and “heal” from the wrongs of two centuries ago, the city remained the scene of a devastating wrong for which no sanctimonious services of lamentation and healing are ever held. That is, most of the city’s children — members of racial and ethnic minorities, far more numerous than there were ever slaves in the state — lack parents, live in poverty, and fail in school. New Haven’s schools have the worst chronic absenteeism in the state and many of those schools are in terrible repair. Many of their students, undereducated and demoralized, graduate to a more subtle but far more prevalent form of slavery.

As for the Indian wars of almost four centuries ago, they were full of atrocities, though today it is politically correct to remember only those of the winning side. 

The massacre of the Pequots in May 1637 in what is now Groton was the most horrible thing ever to happen in Connecticut. But the Pequots started the war. The tribe’s very name meant “destroyers” and they already had made deadly enemies of the Mohegans and Narragansetts long before attacking the English settlement in Wethersfield in April 1637, killing nine unarmed people, including three women, kidnapping two women, and killing the settlement’s cattle. 

So a month later the English, Mohegans, and Narragansetts united in a conclusive slaughter.

While the Treaty of Hartford fairly can be called genocidal, it was itself a response to genocide in an era when genocide was common.

No morality is taught by the sanctimony that evoked these horrors last week. Slavery has had no constituency in Connecticut since those last slaves were sold in 1825. Nor is there any constituency here for genocide, though in modern war civilians are often killed.

But there is a selfish political constituency for mobilizing the horrors of the past. 

Sanctimoniously reminding people of slavery can intimidate them out of opposing the claims of racial minorities for more government patronage, though that patronage isn’t righting any wrongs.

And sanctimoniously reminding people of the Treaty of Hartford may insulate the absurd patronage enshrined in state law whereby the ultra-distant descendants of the ancient Pequots, the victims of genocide, share a casino duopoly with the ultra-distant descendants of the ancient Mohegans, that genocide’s co-perpetrators.

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

-END-

Where did the parents go? And is poverty forever?

By Chris Powell

Every few weeks some government agency or news organization in Connecticut reports that members of racial minorities are more afflicted than whites in some respect. Two weeks ago it was the state child advocate’s office, which said children from racial minorities are far more likely to die from gun violence than white children.

This is supposed to be shocking. But the reaction it deserves is just: Uh, duh.

‘Mean’ is not an argument in transgender controversy

Rent control won’t build the housing Connecticut needs

Homelessness, mental illness invite a ‘town farm’ approach

A member of the child advocate office’s Child Fatality Review Panel — Pina Violano, a nursing professor at Quinnipiac University — says: “This is a tragedy every day in our neighborhoods that we are normalizing. We need to draw more attention to this. We need wraparound services for these kids. We need for them to be in school. We need mentors and we need mental health programs.”

No, thank you. 

The murder of children is mainly the consequence of generational poverty. It won’t be addressed until generational poverty is addressed and particularly not until government examines why decades of poverty policy and its billions of dollars in spending have failed to reduce generational poverty and improve living conditions in the cities. Until that failure is addressed, please, no more “wraparound services,” “mentors,” and “mental health programs,” all the bromides of ineffectual social work, the nanny state, and bloated government.

If, as Professor Violano notes, children who are especially at risk are often not in school and in places where they shouldn’t be, what they need most is parents, who were omitted from the professor’s list of needs. Parents are “wraparound services,” or are obliged to be.

Most minority children in Connecticut’s cities live in single-parent households. Some are being raised by a grandparent. Many are neglected and when they get to school they don’t know how to behave. The misbehavior of neglected children has made hiring and retaining good teachers extremely difficult for city schools.

Within living memory nearly all children in Connecticut had two parents. So why do so many more children in the state, especially in the cities, no longer have two or even one? What happened in society, law, and government policy to change that? What might reverse the disastrous trend?

The child neglect of generational poverty, not gun violence, is the big tragedy Connecticut has been normalizing. Indeed, a whole industry has developed to normalize it, to try to remediate rather than eliminate it, and the more that gets remediated, the more that is produced to be remediated. All because no one in authority dares to ask: Where did the parents go? What destroyed the family?

Meanwhile state legislators are again contemplating whether Connecticut should give up on expecting members of racial minorities to comply with ordinary motor vehicle rules. 

Last week the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee held another hearing on a bill to prohibit police from stopping motorists for equipment violations — broken headlights and taillights, improperly displayed license plates, and such.

The complaint behind the bill is that such enforcement disproportionately targets racial minorities. Is this disproportion a matter of the racism of police officers, or is it, like the disproportion in child murders, a matter of racially disproportionate poverty — a matter of people who can’t as easily afford to keep their cars in good repair or who, being poor, lack respect for society and the law?

In any case there was testimony at the hearing that stops by police for auto equipment violations can get drivers violent and lead to shootings — either shootings of police by angry drivers or shootings by police of angry drivers who threaten them.

Of course no motorist likes being pulled over by police. But the premise of the legislation is that members of racial minorities simply can’t be expected to follow the law as everyone else is expected to do, so the law should not be enforced anymore.

That premise is disgraceful, demoralizing, and — yes — racist, but it may make sense if Connecticut believes that it will never alleviate poverty and the disproportions it imposes throughout life.

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

-END-

‘Mean’ is not an argument in transgender controversy

By CHRIS POWELL

According to the leader of the Democratic majority in the state Senate, Norwalk’s Bob Duff, Republican legislators are “mean” for proposing legislation to prevent boys from participating in girls’ sports when the boys think of themselves as girls.

Rent control won’t build the housing Connecticut needs

Homelessness, mental illness invite a ‘town farm’ approach

Must nearly all Connecticut be on government’s payroll?

“Mean” is pretty tame as Democratic criticism of Republicans goes these days. At least Duff didn’t call the Republicans racist, misogynist, or right-wing extremists, as is commonly done by many Democrats without prompting other Democrats to call them “mean.” These days anyone who suggests, for example, that state government shouldn’t be controlled by the government employee unions anymore is bound to be called one of those things, maybe all three. For as Lenin or some other totalitarian is supposed to have observed: If you label something well enough, you don’t have to argue with it.

Calling Republicans “mean” for wanting to keep males out of female sports is not an argument. It is a distraction, because there is no argument against keeping males out of female sports, except that doing so may hurt the feelings of the males who think of themselves as female.

But keeping those males out of female sports doesn’t deny them the ability to participate in sports, as is sometimes alleged, since they remain free to participate in male sports. 

If anyone really needs reminding, the premise of segregating the genders in sports is that on average males are larger, stronger, and faster than females, and that only such segregation can assure equal opportunity for females, which the 1972 amendments to Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were meant to achieve.

But now that the transgenderism cult has taken over the Democratic Party, the party maintains that physical differences between the sexes have disappeared and there is no unfairness in requiring females to compete against males, even as males competing as females have famously robbed the latter of deserved victories in Connecticut and throughout the world, sometimes inflicting physical injuries on the females.

That unfairness is what is “mean,” though Duff affects not to see it.

If a male can deny biology and merely think himself female and induce government to compel everyone to pretend along with him, what becomes of reality? After all, if the adage is true — that you’re only as old as you feel — how can adults be prevented from playing in Little League and lording it over the kids there?     

Most people know that the transgenderism cult in sports is nonsense but are reluctant to say so lest they risk having the cult’s many demagogues call them “mean” or something worse. After all, they may figure that there is only a little injustice here — to the few females who lose to the males who purport to have transcended their gender and its physical advantages. 

Even so, it’s injustice all the same, and resolving the issue in favor of justice might be easy in Connecticut if a team competing against the University of Connecticut’s beloved women’s basketball team recruited a transgender player or two who proceeded to knock the UConn women around in a blowout on television.

The resulting popular indignation might give Connecticut Democrats some political courage.

The Biden administration turned Title IX on its head, the Trump administration is striving to put it back upright, and a few Democrats may be realizing that the country is not inclined to keep pretending along with them that males belong in female sports, bathrooms, and prisons, nor to pretend that immigration law enforcement should stop. Indeed, only such Democratic nuttiness could have brought Donald Trump back to the presidency.     

California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who aspires to his party’s next presidential nomination, appeared to have deduced this the other day when he told an interviewer that male participation in female sports is unfair. This was amazing, since California is where most nuttiness originates.

If Newsom can repudiate the nuttiness, could Senator Duff and other Democrats in Connecticut repudiate it someday as well? Or would that be too “mean”?    

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

-END-

Rent control won’t build the housing Connecticut needs

By Chris Powell

Connecticut’s cost of living is high, in large part because of housing prices, and nearly everyone says the state needs much more housing, especially “affordable” housing — most of which is rental housing. But whether everyone who says the state needs more housing really believes it is a fair question.

Homelessness, mental illness invite a ‘town farm’ approach

Must nearly all Connecticut be on government’s payroll?

Undo corrupt deal on PURA; and UConn’s bigger scandal

That’s because most of the housing legislation proposed in the General Assembly wouldn’t increase the supply of housing at all. Most proposals would just scapegoat landlords, though more rental housing requires more landlords. Other proposals would just increase the dependence of renters on government. 

State government action that might actually get any “affordable” housing built remains too controversial, even for many Democratic legislators who ordinarily prattle about helping the poor even as Democratic administrations lately have been grinding the poor down with inflation, high electricity prices, and ineffectual schools.

For example, Democratic legislators want a big increase in state government rent subsidies to tenants, which turn housing into political patronage and take tenants hostage.

Democrats want to forbid landlords from evicting tenants at the end of their leases without “just cause.” End-of-lease evictions undertaken so landlords can raise rents would be prohibited. This would be rent control, which never got any housing built but only destroyed the private sector’s incentive to build rental housing.

Democrats want to forbid landlords from charging more than a month’s rent for a security deposit, as if landlords shouldn’t have the right to judge how much of a deposit is necessary to protect their property against damage by tenants. 

Democrats want to restrict the rent increases that can be charged upon sale of a property — more rent control.  

Democrats want to require even smaller towns to establish “fair rent commissions” — still more rent control.

Legislation called “Towns Take the Lead” would require towns to set housing construction goals, but there would be no firm enforcement mechanism for achieving them.

Democrats want state government to increase its obstruction of federal immigration law enforcement and provide more medical insurance coverage to illegal immigrants, thus incentivizing more illegal immigration, even as state government has never made any provision for housing Connecticut’s estimated more than 100,000 immigration law violators.

The most helpful of the Democratic housing proposals may be the one that would formally authorize homeless people to live, eat, and sleep on public land. Connecticut has many destitute, addicted, and mentally ill people, and some of them panhandle and live largely out of sight in the woods or underbrush, but so far the state lacks anything like the sidewalk tenting camps of Los Angeles and Portland, Ore. Maybe that kind of visibility for the destitute and disturbed is necessary to get Connecticut thinking seriously about its housing policy, social disintegration, and declining living standards.

The only sure way to get a substantial amount of new housing in Connecticut is for state government to commission it directly and let landlords charge market-rate rents. 

Connecticut’s cities, with their populations impoverished by state welfare and education policies and their governments surviving mainly on state financial aid, are already wards of the state. They also have large tracts of decrepit industrial and residential property already served by water, sewer, gas, and power lines and public transportation — property that practically begs for redevelopment, especially mixed-use redevelopment, with commerce at street level and residences upstairs, redevelopment that doesn’t worsen suburban sprawl.

A state redevelopment authority could be authorized to purchase or condemn such properties and provide them to developers, specifying their development format and completion schedules, while leaving rents to the market so the new properties won’t become more government-engineered slums. Cities might resent their loss of control to the state redevelopment authority but then few cities are operated well enough to deserve control of state housing policy any more than suburbs deserve to control it with their exclusive zoning.

Any new middle-class housing will help bring down the cost of all housing nearby, and the cost of living generally. If Connecticut’s decentralized political system can’t get housing built, state government will have to do it.       

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

-END-