Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
By William Greene
There is no shortage of irony in Democrat mayoral candidate Rich Smith’s campaign slogan: “Lower taxes. Stronger Milford.”
As interim mayor in 2023, Smith openly lamented that credit rating agencies like Standard & Poor’s and Fitch had downgraded Milford’s bond rating because “we were cutting taxes by half a mill every year while operational costs continue[d] to grow.” A good bond rating matters because it reassures investors that a city offers a more stable business climate. In turn, this can attract more jobs and investment — and ultimately reduce the tax burden on residents.
Smith was right to call out fiscal irresponsibility under Democrat Mayor Ben Blake (2011–2023), who failed to fully fund Milford’s pension system and leaned on contingency funds to cover budget gaps. When Blake took office, the pension was 120% funded. By the time he left, it had fallen to just 75%.
In 2023, Smith urged his successor to have the “political courage” to stop chasing symbolic tax cuts and to address long-term obligations like pensions. Yet today, Smith has turned his warning into a campaign mantra, labeling his opponent, Republican Mayor Anthony Giannattasio, as “Taxin’ Tony” for raising taxes. The charge reeks of political convenience.
The reality is that Giannattasio has done the hard work Smith once said was necessary: reducing the pension deficit. Though not ideal, taxes did increase over the past two budget cycles. This past May, the mill increased by 0.41 (from 29.14 mills to 29.55), raising residents’ property tax bills by an average of $184. Tax increases are hardly cause for celebration — but deferring obligations and leaving a heavier burden for tomorrow’s taxpayers is less responsible.
Even more ironic is how Smith’s fellow Democrats on the Board of Aldermen have handled the budget. No budget — and therefore no tax increase — passes without their majority consent. Earlier this year, they had the chance to approve amendments that would have lowered taxes. According to the Milford Mirror, the changes would have cut $3.7 million from the budget, lowering the mill rate to 29.09.
Instead, Democrats voted 8–7 to raise taxes, with Smith’s own campaign treasurer among those opposed to the cut. Why? Because lowering taxes under Giannattasio's plan might have strengthened his re-election message. In other words, political advantage outweighed fiscal relief for residents, even if minimal.
Smith’s campaign rhetoric ignores these realities. When he wasn’t running for office, he spoke plainly about the risks of tax gimmicks and underfunded pensions. Now, he’s adopted a message he once criticized, hoping voters won’t notice the inconsistencies.
Affordability is the defining issue for both city and state residents. Lowering taxes is a worthy goal but true relief also requires long-term fiscal discipline: funding pensions and controlling operational costs.
In Milford, it has been Giannattasio — not Smith — who has shouldered the political cost of that discipline. Tax increases are never popular. But unlike symbolic half-mill cuts, they have come with the benefit of reducing pension debt and strengthening the city’s balance sheet. That is the kind of leadership Smith once called for.
Smith’s shifting message raises a simple question: is he offering real solutions, or just campaign slogans? Voters should remember his own words from 2023, when he warned that “political courage” meant resisting the easy path of tax cuts and doing what was responsible. Today, that responsibility falls on all of Milford’s leaders — and on those asking to be trusted with the city’s future.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
