Categories

Home » Opinion » Letters to the Editor » Letter to the Editor: Resist the Rhetoric

Letter to the Editor: Resist the Rhetoric

The views stated here are those of the individual contributor and do not necessarily reflect those of the staff of HaddamNow.com.

On this morning’s Channel 3 WFSB news there were comments by Senator Blumenthal and Governor Malloy critical of the tax overhaul plan passed in the U.S. Senate yesterday.  Their comments can best be described as the standard democratic knee-jerk reaction to anything proposed by Republicans … it will raise taxes on thousands of middle-income families and favor corporations and wealthy Americans.  People need to stand up and tell these guys; we have had enough of their tired rhetoric.

Major tax reforms during the Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton administrations  have all resulted in significant increases in the economy and the creation of millions of jobs which have helped all Americans.  Surely here in Connecticut where jobs and people have been fleeing the state, Blumenthal and Malloy ought to be applauding, encouraging and supporting the changes which would help the Connecticut economy.  But instead all we ever get is their party line.

Sen. Blumenthal even went so far as to bemoan the impact of the tax reform package on Connecticut homeowners with crumbling foundations as though this were a federal issue.  If Gov. Malloy had not demolished Connecticut’s economy, our state would be able to deal with this local issue on its own.

The Democrats are sealing their own fate.  Connecticut Republicans are well-positioned to take control of the state house, the state senate and the governorship in 2018 primarily as a result of the ineptness of Democrats at all levels in our state.  The change Connecticut needs must come with or without these Democrats.

Edward Munster
Haddam Civic League President

Please follow and like us:

4 Responses to Letter to the Editor: Resist the Rhetoric

  1. Jason esteves Reply

    December 3, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Ed,
    Thanks for proving this is a Republican blog. There’s nothing like the editor writing a letter to himself. BTW what was the difference in the deficits between the Reagan and Clinton tax cuts?

    • HDadmin Reply

      December 4, 2017 at 5:48 pm

      Here is our staff directory: http://www.haddamnow.com/staff/. Ed Munster is the president of the Haddam Civic League; he is not, nor has been, an editor. It could have been run as an Op Ed, but we decided that if we do one of those, we want it to be a point/counterpoint (two opposing viewpoints) Op-Ed/Editorial.

  2. Earle Decker Reply

    December 4, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    We do need a change in the Senate and House landscape in our haplessly run state government.

  3. Steven Lowrance Reply

    December 4, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    A simplistic summary of history.

    Plans to cut taxes and regulations cannot reasonably be justified as guaranteed ways to invigorate the economy. The better way to assess these ideas is on their intrinsic merits: whether tax levels will enable Washington to meet its spending obligations or whether regulations are needed to protect consumers, workers, and the environment at reasonable cost to business. Those who claim lower taxes and less regulation are the key to prosperity must answer why presidents who pursued the opposite strategy, Obama and Clinton, each generated better results on income and poverty than the two-term Republican presidents that preceded them.

    Those who claim Reagan’s tax cuts were the cause of prosperity forget that his tax cuts were the result of much bipartisan effort, that he reformed taxes by cutting loopholes that resulted in the rich paying even higher taxes, that the Fed slashed interest rates, that the federal government increased government spending dramatically, that the dollar was devalued. Yes, the economy grew but the federal deficit ballooned from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. The current Republican plan cannot claim to be anything but voodoo economics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *