Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State

Kevin Rennie wondered in his blog “Daily Ructions” why, under “the grocery tax set to take effect Oct. 1, six bagels won't be subject to the higher sales tax, but five bagels will, because they're considered to be prepared foods for immediate consumption.” And he then proposed a solution to the conundrum: “The legislature needs to change this law.” Governor Ned Lamont, Rennie wrote, is attempting “to erase the advantage grocery stores that sell prepared foods have over restaurants,” an alibi that seemed to him suspect. If Lamont were at all worried about the restaurant business in Connecticut, “he would not have singled it out for an increase in the sales tax from 6.35 percent to 7.35 percent. He wanted the money more than he cared about the cost of dining out and its consequences for restaurant owners, workers and patrons.” And, truly, if Lamont and his handlers were worried about equity alone, the governor and the tax hungry crowd of Democrat progressives in th...

“There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one”  ―  C.S. Lewis,  That Hideous Strength Morality through the ages has always been an OK-Not-OK proposition. Some things were just not to be suffered gladly and, before the ascendancy of the new morality, it generally had been agreed that society had a moral obligation to impose sanctions on persistent cultural deviants. This proposition was heartily rejected by the sons and daughters of the Woodstock Generation, some of whose adherents are now pontificating from the hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress. In connection with the presumed manifold sins of prospective U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one longs for a voice rising above clamorous moral maenads in the Democrat Party – saints Schumer, Blumenthal and Feinstein, U.S. Senators all – “Let he  ( and, to be fair, she) who is without sin cast the first stone.” It is impossible at this p...

Shortly after U.S. Senator Chris Murphy concluded his 15 hour filibuster – which was awarded three out of four Pinocchios by the left of center Washington Post -- he received plaudits from the usual corners of the Democratic Party barracks. All seven Members of Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional Delegation heaped praise upon Mr. Murphy, which must have come as a relief to the Senator, because it released him of the embarrassing necessity of praising himself. For a while there it was nip and tuck. A meeting of the minds between Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, and Democrats was a distinct possibility.  Before Mr. Murphy’s filibuster, Senate Republicans had proposed an amendment to a background check measure offer by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. The Republican amendment was, according to a story in the Hartford Courant , a compromise attempt designed to correct what many felt was a defect in the watch-list measure supported by virtually a...

Here is a chicken or the egg question: In political corruption cases, should the targeting of suspects for prosecution precede or follow the investigation? Most of us would agree that the targeting of conspirators and co-conspirators in political corruption trials should follow an investigation, because it is the investigation itself that determines culpability. “First the verdict, then the trial,” says the Queen of Hearts in the topsy-turvy world of Lewis Carroll’s “ Through the Looking Glass .” The world confronted by Alice in Wonderland is supposed to be inverted, the way images are seen in a mirror. But in the real world, we want verdicts to follow trials and targeting in political corruption trials to follow complete and exhaustive investigations. At some point in the corruption investigation of John Rowland, prosecutors decided to target Mr. Rowland as conspirator number one. Other apparently less important conspirators in the case were Brian Foley, the owner of ...

“Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it” -- Albert Camus The real problem with the Hartford Courant's editorial is that the editorial board that signed off on it appears to lack the courage of its own admittedly fuzzy convictions. The collapse in courage begins with the editorial’s title, “Bravado Alone Won’t Stop Gun Toll.” Well, of course it won’t. When has bravado alone ever stopped a bullet? The paper is careful not to mention that the “Gun Toll” in Connecticut includes crimes committed by criminals who will not be deterred by the gun restriction bill produced by Connecticut’s General Assembly, pretty much for the same reason bank robbers are not deterred by bank regulations governing the withdrawal of money from bank vaults. Law abiding clients of banks studiously make out all those withdrawal slips; robbers don’t bother to observe such proprieties.