Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube
“No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session” -- Gideon John Tucker (1826–1899), American lawyer, newspaper editor, and New York politician
The tax rebate check we were told for (weeks) was “in the mail” is no longer in the mail. Instead, the Hartford Courant tells us, “hundreds of millions of dollars will be funneled to cities and towns in order to avoid local property tax increases, as mayors and first selectmen will be urged to hold the line on spending in the next fiscal year.”
Rebates, rather than tax cuts, are instantly revocable at the pleasure of Democrat leaders in the state General Assembly. Rebates should be regarded by state taxpayers and reporters as temporary political coupons designed to bring into the Democrat Party fold hard pressed voters who surely know the difference between a permanent or semi-permanent price reduction and a temporary coupon offered at the pleasure of a provider of goods and services.
A tax cut leaves prospective tax payments in the hands of taxpayers. A tax rebate is first collected by the state and then partly returned – or not – to tax payers. In the case under examination, the tax rebate promised to taxpayers months before the upcoming elections will instead be distributed to municipalities as a tax relief program that will offer no real net-tax relief to taxpayers. While the flow of taxation will be changed, the amount of taxes will remain the same. Taxes will not be cut. More importantly to dominant Democrats in the General Assembly, leading legislators (read: Democrat legislative gatekeepers in the General Assembly) will not be forced to cut net-spending to pay either for the temporary tax rebate or the repurposed tax rebate.
This is a win, win proposition for hegemonic Democrats in Connecticut. In “the state of steady (bad) habits,” it is considered politically inconvenient for tax stakeholders to even mention the words “reduce spending.” And the possibility of permanent spending reductions is nearly always considered a political calamity among spendthrift Democrats and the state’s reportorial chorus.
Governor Ned Lamont’s response to the repurposed tax rebate is strained to the point of absurdity.
Lamont said, “I have heard directly from mayors, first selectmen, superintendents, students, and taxpayers across Connecticut who are feeling the squeeze of rising costs. This $270 million is a direct response to the strains being placed on town, school district, and family budgets. By closing funding gaps for our schools and municipalities, we can help communities avoid raising property taxes while keeping classrooms running and local services strong. Affordability is a top priority for this administration, and this investment delivers real relief where people feel it most.”
Just to begin with, the “squeeze of rising costs” felt by Connecticut taxpayers is due to federal government caused inflation, non-payment of costs incurred by state government – Connecticut’s net tax-supported debt (NTSD) debt is nearly the highest in the nation – and improvident spending. All spending in the face of mounting debt is improvident. The classic definition of inflation is: “Too many dollars chasing too few goods. Inflation, a reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar, is government caused; state debt is government caused. The Inflation problem is answered when the federal government pays its debt through tax increases or spending reductions or both, rather than flooding what is left of the free market with devalued currency and excessive borrowing.
Connecticut’s total state government debt is approximately $26 billion as of 2026.
A requested Office of Legislative Research report sent to the General Assembly in September 2024 notes, ominously, “Connecticut had the highest NTSD as a percent of own-source revenue at 103.8%, greater than the median of 24.5% for all states.”
The “squeeze” referenced by Lamont, in other words, may properly be laid at the feet of spendthrift politicians for whom debt, however high, is not viewed as an impediment to spending. Both inflation and budget deficits are caused by improvident politicians who seek, just in time for reelection, to offer false solutions to problems they themselves have caused.
Lamont was not alone in patting himself on the back. “For the Hartfords, the Bridgeports, the East Hartfords, the Meridens, the Waterburys, there’s a lot of money in there,” said House Speaker Matt Ritter, a lifelong Hartford resident. “We’re hoping they’ll use it to reduce property taxes or stabilize their budget for a couple of years. Don’t blow it all at once. But it’s a gift — I shouldn’t say gift. That’s the wrong word. It’s a grant that they did not see coming.”
The distinction between Ritter’s gift and a grant is paper thin. Ritter is gifting or granting other people’s money to the cities Democrats depend on for reelection, and the problem with granting other people’s money to politically favored groups is, as Prime Minister of Great Britain Maggie Thatcher once said, “Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.” There is another problem as well: Why should any of us suppose that an allocation of other people’s money by Ritter will be money well spent – or better and more profitably spent than the same funds distributed by a fair and equitable free market system?
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
