 |
| Lamont Looney Aresimowicz |
Governor Ned Lamont met recently with the governors of two
contiguous states, Rhode Island and Massachusetts to palaver about
infrastructure maintenance. A fierce middle class taxpayer opposition to
tolling in Connecticut has given the governor and the two Democrat gate-keepers
in the General Assembly, Senate President Martin Looney and Speaker of the
House Joe Aresimowicz, political hiccups.
Lamont began pushing for tolls during his election campaign
for governor. In that campaign, Republican nominee for governor Bob
Stefanowski was widely derided by Democrats and critics in the
state’s media for centering his campaign on a pledge to do away with
Connecticut’s income tax over a ten year period. Pressing on, Stefanowski said
his pledge was aspirational and, once accomplished, would reset Connecticut in
New England’s crown as a haven from excessive taxation. In addition, it would
force politicians in the state to confront the ongoing problem of excessive
spending.
Couldn’t be done, everyone said; after all, the state was
looking down the barrel of a biennial deficit approaching $4 billion. If
politics is the art of the possible, the Democrats’ effort to impose upon
Connecticut’s already tax overburdened voters a new revenue source has been, to
put it kindly, unartful.
Russell Long of Louisiana might have enjoyed the first toll
proposal Lamont unfurled in his gubernatorial campaign. “Most people,” said
Long, “have the same philosophy about taxes.” And he poeticized the philosophy:
Don’t tax you,
Don’t tax me,
Tax that fellow behind the tree.
Get someone other than voters, in other words, to pay for
your expenditure. For campaigner Lamont, the “fellow behind the tree” was large
trucks steaming through Connecticut – a truck tax. Once elected, Lamont
realized truck tolling alone would not provide Connecticut with the revenue it
would need for necessary infrastructure repairs. And then too, there was that
pesky multi-billion deficit poking its nose over the horizon. Lamont suggested
a massive number of toll gantries, later reduced to 50, a plan that
very likely ran into difficulties with federal overseers who would allow toll
gantries only to reduce congestion. Connecticut may be congested with taxes,
but cars? Not so much.
Along came No Tolls CT, which struck a responsive chord in
the hearts of voters already overburdened by a kleptocracy that had
been raiding
the transportation fund since 2001.
Gatekeeper magicians Looney and Aresimowicz were unable,
they said, to round up the yes votes in the General Assembly, even though
Democrats enjoy huge margins in both chambers following the most recent
elections in which President Donald Trump, not yet impeached, was made to play
the role in the Democrat campaign script of Beelzebub, sulfur pouring out of
his nostrils. The propaganda – Trump did not appear on the ballot – worked,
some political commentators believe, to swell Democrat numbers in the General
Assembly. Half of the Democrat caucus is composed of progressives, sulfur
pouring out of their nostrils.
Lamont, as it turns out, was far more successful than Stefanowski
in fooling some of the people some of the time, but his recent toll proposal
has strained the credulity even of his well-wishers in Connecticut’s media.
Lamont has now reverted to his initial campaign toll
proposal. Maybe tolling only trucks and tolls on bridges was not such a bad
idea.
Emilie
Munson of CTMirror puts it this way:
“Either proposal involving tolls or bridges would represent
a significant retreat from Lamont’s proposal for numerous gantries on
interstates 95, 91, 84 and the Merritt Parkway.
“And neither idea is a clear winner: both concepts face some
reservations from the governor’s office and within the Democratic caucus, as
well as full-throated opposition from Republican leaders.
“The resurfacing of the trucks-only concept, which he
[Lamont] championed on the campaign trail and then retreated from early in
office, may bring fresh accusations of political flip-flopping — even if the
new suggestions are slightly different from last year’s.”
It’s not just a flip-flop, which may sometimes be written
off to unforeseen exigencies. What we have here is a flip-flop of a flip-flop.
Stefanowski, to his credit, neither flipped nor flopped.
Stefanowski has not entirely retreated from the political
stage, nor has David Stemerman,
who finished third in the Republican Gubernatorial primary.
Stemerman’s tweets are not as flashy as Trump’s lightning
bolts, but they get the job done: “CT should be thriving, but a toxic
combination of high cost of doing business, unfunded pension liabilities and
poor infrastructure, driven by bad policies from Hartford, are hurting our
state as @CNBC’s annual ranking of
states for business confirms today.”
One cannot help but wonder whether the governors of Rhode
Island and Massachusetts might agree with that assessment. When Lamont stops
spinning like a top, it might do him well to address himself seriously to the
toxic combination referenced by Stemerman – and others.
Comments