Below is a key note
address delivered to the Bethel Republican Town Committee during their lobsterfest.
My thanks to Bill Hillman, who invited me to speak, and everyone present who was
kind enough to hear me out. A good time was had by all, except for the
lobsters.
Atheists In Ireland
When Bill Buckley – who lived in Connecticut nearly all his
life, first in Sharon and later in Stamford – went to Ireland for the first
time, he did what most Irish Americans do on their first trip to the land of
saints. He visited dusty old churches and examined dusty old records to uncover
his family’s roots.
Then he went on a pub crawl.
It was the most curious thing, he told me. On whatever topic
a conversation began in a pub, it somehow almost invariably turned into a
discussion of religion. And this, he found, was true in pub one, two, three and
so on. One of the people mentioned a famous atheist writer in Ireland. Buckley
pretended to be shocked and said, “Do you mean to tell me there are ATHEISTS in
Ireland? Hadn’t Saint Patrick driven them all out? “There are atheists in
Ireland,” one of the people gathered around him said. “But you have to
understand,” Mr. Buckley, “Here in Ireland, there are two kinds of atheists –
Protestant atheists, and Catholic atheists.”
I often think of that episode when, making my rounds, it is
pointed out to me that there are no more non-partisan, objective journalists in
the land of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. And I’m tempted to reply, “There
are non-partisan, objective journalists around. But you have to understand,
there are two kinds of non-partisan, objective journalists – Democrats and
Republicans. Most media people self-identify as independents, Joe Scarborough
being the most recent convert to Independence -- but the claim of independent
is for cover mostly; on matters of moment, most media folk in Connecticut drift
towards the left corner of the political barricades.
Here in Connecticut, I once thought, Democrat non-partisan objective
journalists probably outnumbered Republican non-partisan objective journalists
by a ratio of two to one because Democrat voters in Connecticut outnumber
Republican voters by the same ratio. Newspaper publishers are still interested
in sales. This turns out not to be true. A recent study in Washington showed
that ninety percent of non-partisan objective journalists regularly vote the
Democrat Party ticket. The proportions likely are similar in Connecticut. A
friend, extrapolating from editorials and op-ed pieces concerning Connecticut
politics, ventured that the disproportion may be much greater than that. She
reckons about ninety eight percent pro-Democrat to .03 Republican, the gap
being made up of journalists professionally indifferent to politics, sports
announcers, weather-persons and the like.
Laying aside the math, it sure doesn’t feel that Republicans
here in Connecticut have a very strong journalistic wind at their backs.
Clobbered By Taxes
Proof of this is in the political pudding. Reasonable people
can reason forward from premises to conclusions and backwards, inferentially from
conclusions to premises. The General Assembly has been dominated by Democrats
for about half a century, in round numbers. Presently, there are no
Republican members of Connecticut’s all Democrat U.S. Congressional Delegation;
in the past, the Delegation was split evenly between the party of Lincoln and
the party of Jefferson, Jackson and Bailey. Jackson, I may note parenthetically,
was only recently booted from the state Democratic annual fund raising dinner.
Feeling the prick of conscience, Democrats last year renamed their annual
dinner because Jackson owned slaves and was indifferent to the plight of those Native
Americans he had herded on to reservations. Who knew? John C. Calhoun has been
expelled from Yale, and Thomas Jefferson is still on parole.
Six years ago, with the election of Dannel Malloy, Democrats
captured the gubernatorial office for the first time since it had been held by
Governor Bill O’Neill and, before him, by Governor Ella Grasso, both ardent
foes of an income tax. Malloy celebrated the Democrat’s clean sweep by refusing
to do any budget business with Republicans; which, of course, left Malloy, a progressive
Democrat, the General Assembly, many members of which are progressive
Democrats, and state unions, Connecticut’s fourth branch of government, in
charge of the state’s purse strings.
The results we see before us. State taxpayers have been
clobbered by the Malloy administration with the largest and the second largest
tax increases in state history – following the imposition, and it was
a grievous imposition, of the Lowell P. Weicker Jr. income tax. A thimble full
of real objective non-partisan journalists are beginning to take note that the
revenue increases have not led, as promised, to balanced budgets or a vibrant
Connecticut economy. The exact opposite is true. Among states not bewitched by
the extravagant and false pretentions of progressivism, Connecticut has become
a laughing-stock. People are beginning to talk about the state’s prosperity in
the past tense.
Reasoning backwards from results such as entrepreneurial
flight, the exodus of young people and businesses from the state, recurring
deficits, and the inability or unwillingness of a Democratic majority and a
Democratic governor to produce and pass through the legislature a budget before
the end of the fiscal year, surely reasonable people can conclude that the
operative premises of the current Democrat progressive regime have not advanced
the public good.
In the last few months, following the dramatic collapse of
progressive pretentions, General Electric has shaken the dust of Connecticut
from its feet and moved to Massachusetts; Mother Aetna has announced it is
moving its headquarters from Connecticut to New York; three rating agencies --
S&P Global Ratings, Moody's and Fitch – have downgraded state bonds, which
will increase the cost of borrowing; Connecticut’s biennial deficit is hovering
around $5 billion; the state’s pension obligations are approaching, depending
upon whose figures one is willing to accept, $68 billion. People gathered here
will understand this is only a partial accounting of Connecticut’s dip into
penury following a half century of Democratic hegemonic rule in the General
Assembly. Time restraints prevent me from adding to the list.
Republican leader in the state Senate Len Fasano said recently he had talked with GE executives before they left Connecticut and – this is a
quote from Fasano -- “They said Connecticut continues to tax at rates that make
it unaffordable for businesses and people to stay here and didn’t see what
Connecticut might look like seven or eight years from now. That’s the same
analysis I’ve heard from a number of businesses as to why they’re leaving. The
progressive agenda this governor put forth is now coming home to roost.”
The Titans of Industry Packing Their Bags
Stanley Black and Decker, like Aetna born and bred in
Connecticut, was celebrating its 175th anniversary in the state.
U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, who while Attorney General of Connecticut was
much in the habit of suing companies, turned up at Republican Mayor of New
Britain Erin Stewart’s doorstep to bestow his congratulations. "This
company,” Blumenthal enthused, “is a national treasure, but obviously a
Connecticut icon," as was – please note the past tense – Mother Aetna, and
Sikorski, bought up in 2015 by Lockheed Martin, which is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland. Job poacher Governor
Rick Scott had contacted Stanley Black and Decker, and his presence in the
state had shivered the timbers of Democrats such as Blumenthal and U.S.
Representative Elizabeth Esty, both present at the anniversary celebration.
Senior Vice President and CFO of Stanley Black and Decker
Donald Allan had not been seduced by Scott’s blandishments. "I think
[Florida is] trying to do the right thing for their state” he said. “However,
we want to make sure we do the right thing for the State of Connecticut. We
have no plans to go anywhere." Business plans sometimes change in response
to changing circumstances.
The dire situation in Connecticut was far from hopeless,
Alan thought: “I think this situation can be solved, but I think government and
businesses have to work together to do that." No doubt Blumenthal and Esty
were gratified that Alan did not descend to particulars, which are, to put it
in the kindest possible terms, distressing.
Let me take you back to June 30, the last day of the fiscal
year, 22 days removed from June 7, the
closing of the state legislature, the date when the state budget was supposed
to have been finalized.
Here is a Hartford Courant headline on June 30, front page,
top of the fold, heralded in super-sized font that even Lori Pelletier,
Connecticut President of the AFL-CIO, could not fail to notice: “A Stinging
Blow”. To the left of the story was a companion item in smaller caps, also top
of the fold, front page: “Dems Push Tax Hikes,” sub-headed, “House proposes
delaying vote until July 18.” The significance of that important date will be
mentioned shortly in this analysis.
One may imagine Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini
devouring these headlines with his poached egg and cappuccino, thinking to
himself as he does so, “See, I was right to move Aetna’s headquarters to New
York. We may have escaped the tax-hike rat-trap just in time.” As easily, one
may imagine Pelletier, pounding her desk after an encouraging conversation with
Massachusetts progressive fire-brand Senator Elizabeth Warren, and letting
loose the standard progressive war-whoop: “See, I was right all along about
this cruel, uncaring, unchristian, greedy, fat-cat, overstuffed poltroon.”
Bertolini, who earlier brushed horns with Malloy, did not
leave the state without pressing down upon the brow of labor a crown of thorns.
An official Aetna statement warned, according to a Courant report, that its
employee presence in Connecticut would be determined by the state’s economic
growth – nada, so far – and what Bertolini called “fiscal stability.” Not much
of that around during the Malloy administration. Hartford has been a Democratic
Party hegemon since 1967, when Republican
Ann Uccello was elected mayor.
“The company remains hopeful,” the official Aetna statement
read, “that lawmakers will come to an agreement that puts Connecticut on a
sound financial footing, and that the state will support needed reforms to make
Hartford a vibrant city once again.” There’s a slogan Hartford Mayor Luke
Bronin, once chief counsel to the Malloy administration, might consider
adopting: Make Hartford Great Again!
The one-party Democratic city is now, and has been for years,
teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. A judge -- provided he is not a
non-partisan Democratic Judge -- might be able to impose on Harford’s public
union employees a regimen that may save Connecticut’s capital city from the
union wrecking ball. It becomes increasingly obvious every day that union-bought
Speaker of the House, Joe Aresimowicz, is not in the reformation business. He
much prefers the status quo: outsized union pensions, recurring deficits,
fleeing businesses, and “fixed-cost” growth that crowds out possible future
reforms made by future governors interested in making Connecticut great again.
Unions The Fourth Branch of Government
Now then, back to that all important date – July 18.
During the first week of July, the Connecticut Post noted in an editorial, “As of now, the next special session to vote on a budget is
not scheduled until July 18. Not by coincidence, that happened to be the day
before the State Employees
Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) was scheduled to finish voting
on contract concessions negotiated by Malloy.”
Indeed, this series of events is no coincidence. Generally
in politics, things happen as they do because politicians who control events
want them to happen in a certain way.
Political business in the House of Representatives is controlled by the
Speaker of the House, without whose assent business is not reported to the
floor. Democrats did not bring a budget to the floor on June 7, when the
legislature was due to close, because Democrats had no budget. Republicans, who
did have a budget in hand that had been vetted and declared balanced by the
state’s budget office, were not permitted to bring their budget to the floor
for either an open discussion or a vote. Aresimowicz, the budget gatekeeper in
the General Assembly, wanted it that way. Both Republicans and Malloy then
produced mini-budgets that were not voted upon, after which Malloy assumed
plenary powers to keep the state on an even keel until union-employed
Aresimowicz was prepared to open a discussion on the budget that should have
been allowed on June 7; that was the date during which a Democrat budget
acceptable to Aresimowicz’s caucus should have been presented to the General
Assembly for discussion and a vote.
None of this occurred
because Aresimowicz and Malloy, the nominal head of the Democratic Party in Connecticut,
did not want any vote on any budget before July 18. Well then, what was so
special about July 18?
Mark Pazniokas and Keith Phaneuf of CTMirror noted in a June 29 report: “Instead of a vote on a mini-budget, House
Democratic leaders tried to refocus attention off the failings of the day and
onto July 18, when they say they intend to vote on a two-year budget that would
protect municipal aid and hospitals, but also would raise the sales tax from
6.35 percent to 6.99 percent.” Aresimowicz was quoted in the CTMirror report to
this effect: “House Democrats, really happy to announce that we are putting
forward a two-year budget to address the many fiscal situations we’re finding
in our state.” And, according to the report, Aresimowicz pointedly noted, “He
said the day House Democrats hope to vote is one day after state-employee
unions are to complete their voting on whether to ratify a tentative
concessions deal.”
In the General Assembly, things happen the way they do
because Democrat leaders, as well as the state’s highly unpopular lame-duck
Democratic governor, want them to happen as they do. Malloy, despite his
denials, did not want the Republican alternative budget to be brought to the
floor for debate, and the Republican budgets – there were more than one -- were
smothered in their cribs, likely because Republicans had, since the beginning
of Malloy’s first term, gained seats in both the House and Senate. The party
split in the Senate is now 18 Democrats, 18 Republicans; and, in recent years,
Republicans have drawn uncomfortably close to Democrats in the House as well.
There the split is 79 Democrats, 72 Republicans – too close for comfort.
Moreover, there is in the General Assembly a rump moderate Democrat faction
that occasionally votes with Republicans against destructive progressive policies.
The quotable Otto Von Bismarck used to say “Only a fool
learns from his own mistakes; a wise man learns from the mistakes of others.”
Foolishly, progressive Democrats did not learn even from their own mistakes.
And, purely for political reasons, they were determined not to rely on the
wisdom of others.
Here is what the Republican Party learned from the mistakes
of the Malloy administration: it is foolhardy to raise taxes in the midst of a
recession. President John Kennedy, who wisely did learn from the
mistakes of others, said as much in perhaps the most important economic declaration
of his presidency, an address he gave to the economic Club of New York three months before he was assassinated. Cutting tax rates – and consequently increasing
revenue by spurring business activity – Kennedy’s plan produced the new revenue
used after his death to launch President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society
programs, some of which, economists later realized, were not so great. Raising
taxes, wise Connecticut Republicans know, saved General Assembly progressive
Democratic leaders the necessity of making prudent, long-term, permanent cuts
in spending. The adjectives here – “permanent, long-term” – are critical.
Temporary fixes fix problems temporarily, after which they recur, like a bad
penny or like repetitive deficits.
The Republican budget plan no progressive Democrat wished to
bring to the floor for an up or down vote was balanced, held the line on taxes
and, in the words of Republican minority leader in the House Themis Klarides ,
eliminated the deficit while “preserving core services, such as education,
without hurting our towns and cities.’’ The
Republican plan also increased school aid for every town and city;
preserved municipal funding overall; forestalled the shift of $400 million in
teacher pension payments to municipalities; had no tax or fee hikes at all, rejected
the House Democratic sales tax hike; offered municipal mandate relief; limited
state borrowing to $1.3 billion; eliminated the property tax on hospitals; implemented
a defined contribution plan for new hires; increased pension and healthcare
payments for all state workers; saved money by reducing overtime payments made
to state employees; and enhanced fraud detection programs to make government
more efficient.
What’s not to like, eh?
The answer to that question – if you are a progressive
Democrat – is everything. Every point of the Republican rescue plan must be
resisted, because the Republican program is an assault on the progressive status quo. Progressivism in Connecticut
has a long beard. The new state Republican Party is a revolutionary instrument.
The most efficient way to resist revolutionary change is to nip it in the bud;
just make sure that no reform measures are brought to the floor for a vote in
Connecticut’s greatest deliberative political body. A bill passed is a power,
but a bill deferred, or not considered, is a pious wish. Because Democrats in
the General Assembly control all the gate keeping functions, they are able to
frustrate Republicans at every turn.
In a well ordered republic, there are no accidents. There
are different kinds of orders in healthy republics; there is, for example a
constitutional order. Nowhere in the state constitution are unions invested
with political power; or, to put it in terms discussed here, we may say that
unions ought not to be allowed to determine the budget narrative. Unions should
be bit players, not the chief characters of the budget play.
Is that the way it happens in Connecticut? Not at all.
A constitutional sequence of budget events in Connecticut would
go like this: 1) the governor produces a balanced budget; 2) the governor
submits his budget to the General Assembly; 3) the legislature either accepts
the budget as is, or modifies the budget; 4) if modified and accepted by both
houses of the General Assembly, the budget is resubmitted to the governor for
his approval signature, or not; 5) if the governor signs the budget, it becomes
law.
In Connecticut, this constitutional process is interrupted
by contractual negotiations between the governor and unions. And it is this
interruption that has prolonged the budget process in Connecticut. But the
union negotiations are not just an interruption of a constitutional process.
The participation of unions in the making of a budget changes the process and the
end results. In effect, this additional scene to the budget play
materially affects its last act. Managing Editor of the Journal Inquirer Chris
Powell has written that out-sized union influence is subversive of the
democratic, small “d”, process.
Why so? Contractual disputes are not settled by legislatures
– but by courts. The union-Malloy- Aresimowicz deal pushes contracts out until
2027, making necessary changes in those contracts impossible for future
governors and legislators to effect. Connecticut is one of a handful of states
in which the final budget product depends upon contractual negotiations between
the chief executive and union heads. Wiser heads in other states adjust budgets
through statute changes. Connecticut was unable to finalize a budget on June 7,
the closing day of legislative year, because Democratic Speaker Aresimowitz,
who is employed by a union, was waiting upon contractual negotiations between
Malloy and SEBAC that did not conclude until July 18.
Having the contracts in hand, Malloy, who in the past has
busied himself by marching in union strike-lines, and Aresimowitz are now able
to present a fait accompli to Republican
reformers -- who are very much interested in restoring to the legislature its
constitutional budget making authority.
Bottoms Up: The Progressive Coup And The Resistance
Consider what will happen if the General Assembly, asserting
its constitutional prerogatives, were to reclaim its budget making authority
from a non-democratic, union-gubernatorial political combine that does not
represent the broad public interest. Because of the delays and interruptions of
the democratic budget process, Malloy now wields plenary power over an
unapproved General Assembly budget. Suppose the General Assembly, asserting its
constitutional responsibilities, were to reject the union-Malloy-Aresimowitz
deal and toss the political ball back into the governor’s court?
What would happen? In a regular – not a special session -- this
would happen: the union-Malloy-Aresimowitz-deal would become law after 30 days had
elapsed – without a vote in the General Assembly. Statutorily, this can
only happen in regular session – not during a special session, a saving grace
Connecticut should be thankful for. The next regular session is in February. It
seems there will be a recorded vote on the upcoming budget. And Connecticut can
only pray that somehow, by hook or crook, Republicans will be able to by-pass
the too clever by half status quo obstructionists and place their reform budget
before the General Assembly for an honest up or down vote – because the
Republican budget contains life-saving measures without which Connecticut will
continue its downward fall. The bottom – very near us – always comes up fast.
The Democratic controlled General Assembly long ago
surrendered its constitutional prerogatives to union enablers; and they cannot now
justly complain that they have been over-mastered by a progressive cabal that,
let off the leash, would yet again increase taxes upon the general working
population and a few millionaire hedge fund managers, all of whom are
considerably more mobile than Aetna and General Electric executives.
Republicans want to restore a constitutional republican
(small “r”) order that has been overturned by undue attentions paid to special
interests. The legislative body, the primary law making body of our
“Constitution State,” should never be permitted to rent out its constitutional
responsibilities and obligations to un-elected political factions – or, indeed,
to the other branches of government, executive or judicial.
The Republican Party has now become the party of necessary
reform; the Democratic Party is the party of the status quo – and everyone now agrees that the status quo is the road full of good intentions that leads, very
quickly, to perdition. The Republican Party wants permanent solutions to
problems that, if left unaddressed, will continue to erode Connecticut’s
standing among other states. Democrats want to make their “temporary fixes”
permanent; that is what they want their status quo budget to accomplish.
If any proof of this is necessary, it was furnished on July
24, when a motion to bring the Republican budget to the floor for a vote was
narrowly defeated, one brave Democrat voting with Republicans. The
SEBAC-Malloy-Aresimowicz also passed and now moves to the Senate, where it is
hoped at least one Democrat may vote for the greater good. “A dead thing,” G.
K. Chesterton reminds us, “can go with the stream, but only a living thing can
go against it.”
Following the House vote, Republican leader Klarides
accurately characterized the Democratic resistance to sound Republican
measures: “The reason our budget has not been called for a vote is that the majority
fears it will pass.” Rep. Gail Lavielle thought, not without reason, that the
vote in favor of the so-called union “concession” agreement presaged further crippling
taxes: “This is a catastrophe for Connecticut; 10 years of no changes in public
sector union benefits; tax increases and service cuts for years, and everyone
who voted for this will be responsible.”
Emerging from the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin
was asked by a woman who accosted him on the street, “Well, sir, what have you
given us?” His reply is our sacred trust – “A republic, madam –
if you can keep it.” Here in Connecticut, we have a republic to keep. Let us
keep it in good order. Let us be steadfast and brave, for liberty can only be
given away once. If we give it to our rulers, we are undone. If we give it to
our children, they will bear in their hearts and spirit the stirring life
affirming words of Samuel Adams, known during his own time as “The father of
the American Revolution.”
Here is Adam’s full throated challenge to patriots of his
own day. Let them ring down the ages in our ears like a loud clanging liberty
bell: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask
not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May
your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our
countrymen.”
Comments