By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens -- John Maynard Keynes
In the coming political battle between Democrats and Republicans
in Connecticut, Democrats will be laying stress on abortion rights, while
Republicans will be pointing to the ravages inflation has imposed on the voting
public in Connecticut.
The political posture of Connecticut Democrats on abortion
rights may be described, ironically, as brazenly libertarian. Broadly speaking,
libertarians favor minimal governmental intervention, especially when the
intervention aborts the liberties of the person. Broadly speaking,
neo-progressives in Connecticut favor the intervention of government in the
ordinary lives of citizens, especially when liberties contravene the public
good as understood by neo-progressives.
It is extremely unusual to find neo-progressives anywhere
arguing that the purchase of a gas oven should be a matter decided between a
purchaser and a supplier, as they often argue that abortion should be a matter
decided between a doctor and her patient, even when the prevailing
neo-progressive position on abortion consists in treating the fetus involved as
if it were little more than chopped liver.
U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, for instance, is an extreme
libertarian on the matter of abortion. He cannot regard the fetus as potential
human life whose right to life should be considered sacrosanct by politicians Blumenthal’s
whose election campaigns are heavily financed by mega abortion providers such
as Planned Parenthood. To allow the fetus any right not enjoyed by, for
example, a woman’s liver would violate a woman’s right to abortion at any stage
of her pregnancy. To put the matter in vulgar terms, Blumenthal’s position on
abortion is that the fetus ought to be considered chopped liver for purposes of
abortion, rather than potential human life, much in the way that an acorn is
not, at its earliest stage of growth, a mighty oak tree.
The Democrat dominated state of Connecticut in 1990 passed a
statute that codified Roe v Wade into
Connecticut law. Since then, a pro-abortion neo-progressive legislature has
considerably expanded abortion rights, according to a 2022 Associated Press report.
In 2022 the U. S. Supreme Court revisited Roe v Wade and declared its prior ruling
in error. Even liberal icon of the court Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued that Roe v Wade initially had been poorly
argued by the court. The court had ruled
51 years earlier that abortion extended to
all citizens of the United States a constitutional right to abortion and – most
importantly -- that state legislators therefore could no longer write laws regulating
abortion.
The high court in Dobbs
v. Jackson Women's Health Organization reversed Roe v Wade and declared 1) the Constitution of the United States
does not confer a right to abortion , and 2) the high court returned to
individual state legislatures the power to regulate any aspect of abortion not
protected by federal statutory law.
The political question that should be foremost on minds
during the upcoming 2024 elections is this: Does Dobbs v. Jackson strengthen or weaken Connecticut’s 1990 law
incorporating Roe v Wade into
Connecticut statutes?
The answer to that question is: Dobbs v.
Jackson strengthens Connecticut’s statutory law because the court has now
transferred the authority to decide abortion issues from courts to state
legislatures, and it is highly unlikely that appellate courts, including the
high court, would reverse its recent decision that affirms the right of state
legislatures to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal
statutory law.
Inflation is, of course, a horse of a different color.
We know that inflation -- a tax hideous because it is hidden
in dollar devaluation – occurs when too many dollars are chasing too few goods,
the classic definition of inflation. The inflation tax is politically caused
when artful politicians increase borrowing and the printing of money to cover
expenses in order to escape spending cuts or tax increases.
Here in Connecticut, the prevailing Democrat majority party,
heavily influenced by neo-progressive ideologues, has yet to acknowledge the demonstrable
connection between excessive spending, crushing debt and inflation. Any attempt
to cut spending over the long term has been manfully resisted by those whose
campaign financing depends upon state employee union greed. Connecticut state
employee unions and Democrats have been scratching each other’s backs for
decades.
Some of this may be changing on the national level. Most polls indicate that divide and conquer
Democrats have of late been less successful in pulling into their orbit
conventional Democrat voters such as Blacks, young voters, and women who have
discovered that third wave feminism is overtly subversive and unfriendly to
first wave feminists.
Democrats on the U.S. Congressional Delegation running for
reelection in 2024 may be dismayed to learn that both surgical abortions and
abortifacients are readily available in Connecticut. Indeed, in addition to
being a sanctuary city state, a state that is nearly number one in high taxes,
a casino state, a marijuana state, and a state with an extremely high per
capita debt, Connecticut is a state of no return for expats who have found greener
pastures elsewhere.
Unlike abortion, inflation, no respecter of persons, affects
everyone
living in Connecticut, including poorly educated inner city children who, if
they are successful in securing gainful employment, will be forced to tote the
burden of future deficits, tax freight carryovers from high stepping, high
spending, neo-progressive legislators who have never met a spending proposal
they did not lovingly embrace.
Comments