Skip to main content

Blumenthal, the Nation’s Worst Attorney General


In 2007, the Competitive Enterprise Institute compiled a report titled “The Nation’s Top Ten Worst State Attorneys General.” Topping the list at number one was Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal; Elliot Spitzer, drummed out of office by a sex scandal, was third.

Bill Lockyer, number two in the 2007 listing, has since been elevated to State Treasurer of California, which is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

If Blumenthal does decide to run for governor, there are ten other “worst” attorneys general who will be vying for the first position.

“Over the past decade,” said Hans Bader, Counsel for Special Projects at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “attorneys general have increasingly usurped the role of state legislatures and Congress by using litigation to impose interstate and national regulations and to extract money from out-of-state defendants. The worst offenders flaunt such abuse of power, with the most notorious of the lot … boasting that he ‘has redefined the role of Attorney General,’”

Blumenthal continues to redefined his role, recently as the new CEO wannabe of AT&T.

"There's a rumor going around that the AG doesn't like AT&T,” Blumenthal said at an anti-AT&T union rally. “Well, I love AT&T. And when they start paying fair wages, when they start keeping jobs here, when they start playing by the rules, Connecticut will love AT&T."

The AT&T workers, according to one report, surrounded Blumenthal and chanted, “Governor Blumenthal.”

Power wise, election to the gubernatorial chair would be a step down for the nations “worst” attorney general.

In response to a shift in business from land line operations to wireless service, AT&T has announced that it is cutting its Connecticut workforce of 6,800 employees by 400 jobs; the company also will transfer another 60 jobs to Michigan. AT&T's landline voice service was down 8 percent in 2008, while its wireless service was up 15 percent.

The day after the news broke, Blumenthal was on the protest line with AT&T workers expressing the conditions under which he would be prepared to love AT&T.

And, of course, Blumenthal’s affection is tied to the power of his office, so unrestrained by judges as to propel him into the number one spot as CEI’s worst attorney general.

Naturally, AT&T is not willing to assume the prone position so that the attorney general may more easily grind its face in the dirt.

"This is not about AT&T. This is not about Blumenthal. This is about the kind of message Connecticut is sending to business — a state that has no positive job growth and] people who are falling over themselves to prove that they're pro-consumer by showing they're anti-business," said AT&T spokesman Dave Mancuso. Look at the states where companies are investing and I think you'll see very different dynamics."

To which independent telecom analyst Jeff Kagan of Atlanta adds, “All of a sudden, they're going to take a big, strong company, and they're going to squeeze it dry. If every state tried to exercise the same control, this company would be doomed. It wouldn't have any control over its future or any control over being competitive."

Blumenthal has asked the state’s Department of Public Utility Control to block the layoffs.

Blumenthal likes to boast that he earns for the state $14 for every dollar spent by his office in producing legislation and filing suits. But that accounting is questionable. We do not know how much in business taxes Blumenthal has cost the state in jobs and business lost through his punitive suits and questionable legislation.

The message Blumenthal is sending out to current Connecticut businesses and prospective business may be more costly than is generally supposed by adulatory commentators, timid governors and supine judges.

Comments

steadyjohn said…
I thought the CT Dept of Labor was in charge of wage issues, but I guess I was wrong. Dickhead wants his greedy paws in the whole pie not just the law enforcement slice.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p