CT gov Malloy at convention

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Not that any of it really has much of a connection to Malloy, at this point.

I respectfully disagree. Of course, I concede that Malloy wasn't governor before 2011. But ideologically speaking, he's perfectly in sync with all the liberal economic policies that define CT...high taxes, huge government, pouring money into cities, giving unions a blank check, etc...

What I mean is this...if Malloy had been governor for the last 40 years, there's no reason to believe anything would be any different. He's a pure liberal, that's precisely how he governed as mayor of Stamford.

As governor, all Malloy is proposing, and all he has actually implemented, is "more of the same".

Malloy in CT, Christie in NJ, Walker in WI, Kasich in OH, all got elected in 2010 facing horrible economic situations. The other 3 governors made sweeping changes, and results are starting to improve (maybe there's causality there, maybe not). Here in CT, Malloy increased taxes and spending. And all we get is a report saying our economy is worse than previously thought.

There isn't a liberal state in this nation with a thriving economy. Many liberal states realized this in 2010, and turned teh rudder to the right. Here in CT, we kept the car aiming straight for the cliff, and Malloy is accelerating the pace, that's all he is doing.

Here's what just baffles me...exactly how many times does liberal economics need to fail, before liberals concede that there might be a flaw in the logic?

For example...the private sector did away with pensions 20 years ago, because they were simply too expensive. Yet Democrats won't give up that perk for labor unions, and guess what? Those labor perks are doing to local governments exactly what you'd expect, they are putting unreasonable demands on local resources. Conclusion...if pensions are too expensive for the private sector, they are similarly too expensive for the public servents that are compensated using taxes paid by those in the private sector. That's as simple as it gets, it doesn't get any simpler than that. Yet liberals won't cocede that point, they just won't. Somehow, the notion that you cannot spend more than you have, is controversial. I don't get why, I just don't.

This is not hypothetical theory anymore, there's actual data to back it up...by just about any conceivable measure, red states (as a group) are financially better off than blue states. I don't know why liberals bend over backwards to deny that.