Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
Only in Connecticut could a Democrat lecture taxpayers about “fiscal responsibility” while voting against giving them back their own money.
During day two of the General Assembly’s Special Session, Sen. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott) proposed something radical by Hartford standards — giving $500 million in surplus cash back to taxpayers. Real crazy stuff.
His amendment to a bill that supposedly “backstops” programs affected by the federal shutdown — which, by the way, ended last night — would have done the unthinkable in Connecticut politics: let residents keep a slice of their own money.
Meanwhile, the underlying bill creates a $500 million slush fund for lawmakers to raid whenever they feel “compassionate,” with language so broad it could cover everything from housing subsidies to political pet projects. Sampson’s plan would have offered middle-class families a few hundred dollars each in a tax credit — a modest break from the nation’s third-highest electric bills and the nonstop taxation that’s shoved them to the brink of extinction.
Enter Sen. Matt Lesser (D-Middletown), who leapt to defend the slush fund like it was his firstborn and biggest campaign donor rolled into one. In Lesser’s world, returning money to taxpayers is reckless, but handing politicians a half-billion dollars to play with is “responsible governance.” He launched into a breathless monologue about Donald Trump, the Supreme Court, and imaginary lawsuits — anything to keep the cash locked safely in government hands. You’d think Connecticut was one court ruling away from breadlines the way he carried on. But the shutdown was over, the SNAP funding was restored, and the only real “emergency” was that taxpayers might actually get some relief for once.
Lesser’s logic went something like this: If the President sues, the Supreme Court rules, and the moon is in retrograde, we might need a new pot of cash — so let’s hoard it now and call it a safety net. Put another way, Lesser wants you to trust him with your money — because obviously, he cares more than you do.
Sampson’s reply was pure common sense: Connecticut’s real emergency isn’t in Washington; it’s right here, where ten percent of residents rely on food stamps because decades of Democratic economic policy have wrecked opportunity and driven everyone else to Florida. Give people back their own cash, he argued, instead of creating a “$500 million slush fund” for politicians to spend behind closed doors.
But Lesser couldn’t resist turning it into a sermon on “unfunded mandates,” scolding taxpayers as if they personally caused global hunger. He portrayed every dollar that isn’t handed to bureaucrats as a moral failure — because in his world, government is the only charity that counts.
This wasn’t a debate about helping the poor. It was about who gets to play savior with other people’s money. Lesser and his colleagues chose themselves. They rejected Sampson’s amendment and kept the fund — a half-billion-dollar pile of “emergency” cash that can now be funneled into any pet project labeled “health care,” “housing assistance,” or “school meals.” No vote required, just a nod from six insiders.
For all his talk of “protecting the vulnerable,” Lesser’s vote did exactly the opposite. It protected politicians from oversight. It protected waste. And it protected a system where working families get lectured for wanting a refund.
Connecticut doesn’t need another “backstop fund.” It needs a restraining order against the people who think they are the economy.
So congratulations, Senator Lesser. You didn’t just vote against tax relief — you voted to keep $500 million locked in the Capitol basement so politicians can play Santa Claus in an election year. Let’s call it what it is — Santa Socialism.
Merry Christmas from the people who think your wallet belongs to them.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
