Connecticut, An Embarrassment Of Riches

The Lamont Family

On the one hand, Connecticut Democrats have for years had a love/hate relationship with the rich. Not a few Democrat Jeremiahs have let loose on the rich over the years, partly in order to claim solidarity with the more numerous middle class.

In our progressive post-Marxian leftist universe, class is still king. The rich, by simply being rich, are still regarded in leftist quarters as oppressors of the proletariat.

Connecticut’s “Gold Coast,” a parcel of well-endowed rich people stretching snake-like along the state’s southern coastline, fairly glows with wealth.

Greenwich is wealth central, and a few Democrat politicians live in the glorious gilded bubble, far from the madding crown. U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal and Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, both of whom will be heading the Democrat ticket in the midterm elections, live in Greenwich. Other Democrat U.S. Congressional millionaires are U.S. Representatives Jim Himes, who also lives in Greenwich, and Democrat U. S. Congressional fixture Rosa DeLauro.

On the other hand, wise politicians will not want to slaughter, even rhetorically, the milch cows whose swollen utters provide them with the mother’s milk of politics. Money is necessary to win office, and you cannot get political contributions from a defamed cow. So then, the delicate job of defaming the rich has been left, in the Democrat Party, to progressive sans culottes.

On occasion, there are uncomfortable, bumper car collisions.

“Lamont earned $26 million in 3 years,” screamed a Hartford Courant front page, above the fold headline.

The Courant noted, “Most of Lamont’s income came from capital gains as Wall Street has shown substantial increases through the years. With adjusted gross income of $8 million in 2020, for example, $7.2 million of Lamont’s total came from capital gains.”

Lamont has not earned his great wealth by installing roofs on Greenwich mansions or fixing plumbing leaks in New Canaan. But then, Lamont has never claimed to be a “lunch pail Joe” as had President Joe Biden, the nominal head of the national Democrat Party, also a millionaire.

The Courant reporter, perhaps winking between the lines, also noted “Lamont released his returns in a controlled environment” – nice touch there -- “in a conference room with two campaign aides at a downtown Hartford office tower. He released a one-page written summary and two pages showing a list of charitable contributions over the past three years. Reporters were not allowed to leave the room with copies of the actual tax returns, which could be viewed but not copied.

“Reporters saw two pages of federal returns and four pages of state returns for three years, but [emphasis mine] Lamont did not release the various schedules and statements that include the full details of tax deductions and capital gains.”

Tax returns are offered for partial inspection in “controlled environments” because great wealth is somewhat embarrassing for millionaire “servants of the people.” And, of course, one does not want to arouse the viperous attentions of progressive “eat the rich” Democrats such as Vermont socialist U. S. Senator Bernie Sanders or the Madam Defarge of New York’s progressive movement, U. S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Jake Lewis, Lamont’s campaign spokesman almost immediately paid tribute to the governor’s transparency, very important among ethicists: “Over the last three years, Gov. Ned Lamont has led the state through a once-in-a-century pandemic while cutting taxes, driving record surpluses, paying down long-term debt, and putting our state in a stronger position than ever before. Releasing his tax returns, as he did in 2018, is about being transparent with Connecticut residents, and they show that he has both paid substantial taxes and made meaningful charitable contributions each year during his first term in office.”

Bob Stefanowski, the likely Republican candidate for governor took issue with Lamont’s campaign fluff after Lewis threw down Lamont’s glove: “We are look forward to Bob Stefanowski releasing his returns, releasing the list of clients he retained since his last run for governor, and showing the world what he earned while leading a payday loan company.”

Stefanowski immediately parried: “The governor released a one-page summary of his income taxes. There is no itemization, no disclosure, and nothing to report Mrs. Lamont making millions from taxpayer-funded COVID contracts. His attempt at transparency is laughable. Rather than doing this twice, my wife and I are going to release our joint return all at once and include 2021. On behalf of the taxpayers, I implore the governor to come clean on how much money his family has profited off Connecticut taxpayers.”

Stefanowski noted last November that Lamont, who had been adorned with plenary powers by a timorous Democrat controlled General Assembly, had “awarded a contract to a company (Sema4) where Gov. Ned Lamont’s wife’s venture capital firm was invested. The contract was awarded despite warnings from The Office of State Ethics that contracts between Annie Lamont’s firm or any associated companies and the state of Connecticut could present a conflict of interest.”

It took two years for a reporter to wrest through the Freedom of Information Commission what should have been public information from the Lamonts. The governor has asserted his family has made no profit from the deal and that, if in the future Sema4 should enrich the Lamonts, he will turn over any profits to charity. The Lamonts may have made no profit from their Sema4 investment because Sema4 made no profit.

Personal wealth generally looms important in political campaigns, but it is less important than the political stewardship of public money. Tax money in Connecticut has for decades been appropriated by Democrats and disbursed by them to politically favored groups that historically have helped the Democrat Party to achieve dominance, all perfectly legal. Tammany Hall Ward Healer George Washington Plunkitt called such partisan favors “honest graft.”

In his most recent budget, Lamont honestly disbursed millions of tax dollars to unionized state workers, alleging that new bonuses were necessary to retain unionized workers who otherwise might retire and move their own personal wealth, tax dollars generously apportioned by Democrats, to greener pastures in, say, Florida or Tennessee, two states that have no income tax. The flow of money from state to state follows the flow of people. Florida is a net importer of tax dollars and people, while Connecticut is a net exporter of tax dollars and people. Then too, bonuses paid to union employees are far less effective in retaining workers than a raise in the retirement age of state workers might be.  

But of course such a simple and equitable solution would involve no tax appropriations and no “honest graft.”