Monday, March 10, 2008

Death of a Supermajority

Tomorrow could give us the death blow of the Democratic Supermajority in the Connecticut General Assembly.

The special election will be held tomorrow for the seat vacated by Democrat Bill Finch, after he cruelly stole Chris Caruso's birthright through the crudity of a legitimate electoral victory.

The two candidates for the 22nd District,which includes Trumbull, Monroe and Bridgeport, are Republican Robert Russo, and Democrat Thomas Mulligan. According to the Connecticut Post, Russo wants to make property tax relief a central feature of his efforts at the capitol, supporting Governor M. Jodi Rell's proposed property tax cap. Mulligan is campaigning to advocate for needy children.

What? Look, helping needy children is all well and fine, but do you really run a senate campaign on that kind of thing?

If Mulligan wants to do that kind of thing, he can always play Daddy Warbucks and hand a plate of chicken out his back door to Little Orphan Annie... after all, when Democrats talk about helping the needy, they really mean they want to help perpetuate the poverty they live on so their social programs never expire.

Russo appears to be campaigning on adult issues that are relevant to the district. Should Russo win, the Democrats' veto-proof margin in the state senate would be gone. Then, I suspect, liberals will have an excuse to expect even less from the greatest do-nothing General Assembly in over a quarter century.
Interestingly, should Republicans win tomorrow, the GOP will be 3 for 3 in special elections since 2006.

8 comments:

Republicanguy said...

Thats absolutely ridiculous. You obviously know nothing about the race...

Mulligan simply doesn't want a dumb tax cap which will cause chaos for every town in CT. Let the towns individually worry about tax code...Why should someone in Greenwich have a say on Monroe's taxes?

Mulligan isn't anti tax cuts AT ALL. He is simply pro-logic, pro-intelligence....

Now if you want to vote for Shay's secretary on the basis of his 1 inane idea than you probably shouldn't head to the polls at all.

Headless Horseman said...

I love it! A vote for a tax-raiser is now "pro-logic, pro-intelligence."

Sometimes I think the arrogance of liberals knows no bounds. Folks like you come along and prove it time and again, so thanks for the refresher.

dsads said...

Oh thats great logic, those that are against a tax cap, are PRO raising taxes?

That IS completely non sequitur!

He would be against a tax floor also! His principle is totally unrelated to whether taxes should be up or down.

Take a look at his voting record, he was one of the most fiscally conservative councilmembers! He's for lowering taxes, AS LONG AS ITS DONE CONSTITUTIONALLY.

Headless Horseman said...

The only reason you can be against the cap is because you want to have the option of going beyond it without the hassle of the hurdles in the way.

We're all very impressed by the "conservative" record of Mulligan.

Tonight we'll see if the 22nd district bought that line.

dsads said...

No you still aren't getting it, you can be against the cap on constitutional grounds...

You can say well this is illegal, therefore I am against it. That is a reasonable statement.

Headless Horseman said...

Yes. You can say that, and I understand your point.

But I think that line of reasoning is a thin veil for wanting to keep the door open for tax increases.

Democrats usually make a big deal about property taxes, pledging to offset them with state money to municipalities. Everyone knows that this never happens, and municipalities never lower taxes due to an increase in state aid (with only two exceptions I can think of).

So we end up getting higher property taxes AND higher state taxes. That's why a cap is a good idea. You can get around it through a referendum. If the town wants the tax increase, they can have it.

Judy Aron said...

Headless - Can I quote you next time during West Hartford's referendums?

I rather like it.. and it bears repeating

"Democrats usually make a big deal about property taxes, pledging to offset them with state money to municipalities. Everyone knows that this never happens, and municipalities never lower taxes due to an increase in state aid (with only two exceptions I can think of).

So we end up getting higher property taxes AND higher state taxes. That's why a cap is a good idea. You can get around it through a referendum. If the town wants the tax increase, they can have it."

Headless Horseman said...

Judy, by all means. You have my commission on it!