Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State

Freshman state Sen. Sam Caligiuri voted against a compromise budget and by doing so became, in Henry David Thoreau’s phrase, “a party of one.” Caligiuri has said the spending increase in the biennial budget’s first year is too high. And he did not understand why the legislature was unable to cut taxes in the face of a $915 million surplus. "I think this is the best budget that we were able to put together given the political reality that we are facing,” Caligiuri said, “and let me also say that if it wasn't for Republican pressure, we would have tax increases today." The budget deal was an exercise in defusing extravagant hopes; some would say nightmarish dreams. The Democrats, as part of the deal struck with obdurate Republicans, gave up a potentially destructive refashioning of income tax – for the time being. Instead of producing a timely budget, Democrats this year spent their time and energy in seeking to make Connecticut’s not quite flat income tax more progressive....

The Greenwich Times is reporting that former senator and governor Lowell Weicker would enthusiastically support the presidential bid of New York Mayor and fellow multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg. "I think he is head and shoulders the best candidate to be president of the United States. I think he'll find lots of support wherever,” Weicker said. There is a problem though: Over at The Politico, Roger Simon is reporting that Bloomberg has given the kibosh to third party enthusiasts such as Weicker, whose former chief aide and Connecticut Republican Party Chairman Tom D’Amore may possibly be angling for a new political prospect after his latest venture, propelling Greenwich senatorial hopeful into current Sen. Joe Lieberman’s seat, proved disappointing. “Asked if there were any circumstances under which he would run,” Simon reported, "Bloomberg replied: ‘If everyone in the world was dead and I was the only one alive, sure.’” That’s a “No.” However, in politics “No’” not ...

If you are an accolade of one of our more modern secular faiths -- say, the ministerial alliance of MoveOn.org or the Non-Sectarian, Non-Religious Atheists Association of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens -- whether you like Barack Obama or not, and there is a there there to like, will depend less on Obama and more on your own deeply held secular and/or anti-religious beliefs. If you think the whole religious business is hokum, you will not appreciate Obama’s brand of hokum. In the anti-religious theatre of thought and action, it is not possible to loathe the war but love the soldier. Hitchens, for one, cheerfully threw off that imposture when, shortly after the death of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, he vigorously and publicly attacked the corpse. A convert to America from Merry Old England, Hitchens is in some ways more American than apple pie; so, for that matter, was DeToqueville. As a confirmed atheist, Hitchens has never been comfortable with religious prattle. Since hypocrisy remains the o...

We often say here in America that politicians with a past are carrying a lot of baggage into office with them. Hillary Clinton’s baggage, as everyone who has not slept through the past two decades may have realized, is husband Bill. And no, I am not referring to what the press used to call in Bill’s Monica Period the president’s sexual “peccadilloes.” We like to turn our pages on our pasts, and America is after all the land of second chances. Most Americans were quite willing to forgive Bill his “indiscretions” about five minutes after the cigar incident. The few women in Bill’s past who were crying “infidelity” – and in at least one case “rape” – were dismissed, even by the feminists, as implausible publicity hounds. No, all that lies in a past that, despite William Faulkner’s misgivings, is over. Faulkner said the past was not over, “It is not even past.” Hillary’s big problem is with husband Bill’s warmongering. In a review of two recent books on Hillary, “Hillary Clinton: Her Way” ...

A state budget soon will be reported out of the legislature – a little late, say some – and it will be yet another “let’s make a deal” budget. Here in Connecticut, it is virtually impossible to get folks focused on state budgets. Town budgets are a different animal, largely because municipal tax payers are occasionally given the opportunity through referendums to vote budgets up or down, a rare concession in Connecticut politics to direct democracy. There is no state budget referendum, which means that final decisions on budgets are left to duly elected legislators -- the deal makers. If the public does not like the budget, it is assumed it will vote out of office the deal makers who, so far, have conspired to raise the bottom line of the state’s budget from a modest pre-income tax budget of $8 or $9 billion – the figures are rounded and near accurate; what’s a billion or two among friends – to about $18 billion today. Now, we know for certain, through casual conversations over beer an...

According to investigative reporter Jon Lender , reporting in the magisterial Hartford Courant on the DeLuca mess: “One ethics law says ‘no person shall offer or give to a public official ... anything of value, including ... a gift, loan, political contribution, reward or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action or judgment of the public official ... would be ... influenced.’” The law, be it noted, punishes the gift giver, not the recipient, who is likely to be a politician. The ethical law, as written, would punish the FBI agent who, acting in his official capacity, offered a bribe to Lou DeLuca. It does not set a punishment for DeLuca for either accepting a bribe from the FBI agent or refusing the bribe and declining to report it. If there is such a rule, it is probably lying rusting in the tool box of the ethics commission. If there is no such law, perhaps some of the ethical paragons in Connecticut’s ruling Democrat Party might want to ...

By Natalie Sirkin Polls show that Americans consider environmental groups the most credible sources of information on the environment, and that they also trust information from regulatory agencies. Yet, these trusted sources routinely misrepresent -- Joel Schwartz Much excellent research has been published on clean air. Joel Schwartz , who has done 30 studies, has added to it that the public has not been told it and does not believe the truth. Much of this column is based upon his lecture, “Breathing Easier About Air Quality,” given in April, 2006, at the Institute for Study of Economics and the Environment at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, Missouri. Air pollution was a problem when Seneca in 61 AD complained of “the stink, soot, and heavy air” in Rome. In London, in 1285, King Edward I created a commission to improve air quality. In the U.S., pollution has been decreasing. Americans get their information, much exaggerated, from journalists, government regulators, environ...