What should be the caption title of the State of Connecticut? In the past, we have seen “The Constitution State,” “The Land of Steady Habits,” and “The Nutmeg State” used to describe a relatively small state bordered by three other ones. However, I submit unto you that a much more apt and descriptive name for the state of Connecticut would be “The Perpetual Debtor State” as politicians of all stripes have done little but spend and bond the way to Connecticut’s economic oblivion for the past thirty-five years.
Does more state governmental spending of taxpayers’ dollars solve social problems? A simple look around will tell you that Connecticut does not solve anything, nor offer any resolutions to the state's social problems with the vast sums of cash being spent by its state government. Kindly note that Connecticut spends $28.1 billion dollars yearly, with the adoption of its new budget and spends over $11 billion dollars on social welfare programs. So why do conditions perpetually worsen?
As we examine more closely, we see that Connecticut being a state of roughly 3.3 million people, spends 40% of its budget on social welfare programs. If one reads even slanted state-run media reports regarding all the social welfare problems the state has in 2026, one could logically assume that the state is throwing away this money with no positive results in solving all these issues. As just one example from a recent article by the left-leaning, oft-quoted, and Democrat friendly nonprofit “Connecticut Voices For Children,” it is stated that, “Connecticut ranked 29th in the nation for the percentage of children living in high-poverty areas. At 7 percent, Connecticut reports a higher share of children living in concentrated poverty than most New England states." (https://ctvoices.org/press_releases/connecticut-ranks-7th-in-the-nation-for-child-well-being-but-economic-inequities-continue-to-hold-too-many-families-back/). Many wonder if the state is spending over 40% of its budget on social welfare programs, how could poverty increase? yet it does.
As much as it wants to spend, Connecticut never rids itself of the social problems of illegal drug use, deaths due to these same illegal drugs, rampant crime, slum-like living conditions in its cities, homelessness, hunger not satisfied by numerous food banks throughout the state and increases in child poverty. If one multiplies the ever-increasing state spending on social welfare since the 1991 implementation of the Utopian State Income tax, billions of dollars, (many matched by Federal funding), have been spent in the last 37 years with little or any positive result. It becomes more evident daily that Connecticut has refined a state perpetually financed with taxpayer-paid spending on welfare, poverty, crime, illegal drug use, hopelessness, hopelessness, and penury. And again, one must realize that Connecticut still is a top five highest taxed state in the country having a poor economic and business climate with $100-150 billion dollars in short- and long-term debt along with unfunded liabilities, and massive industry and corporate losses. Where has all the money gone to produce such poor results? Or is this the intended consequences of attempting to strip a productive economy of its past vibrancy. and replace it with failed socialism and control of its youth?
Much
to the chagrin and to the resistance of just about every Connecticut state office
holder and candidate being afflicted with the debilitating disease of Trump
Derangement Syndrome, there have been several plans and provisions under the
Trump Administration to change this way of welfare life. My colleague Tony De Angelo
has talked numerous times about the economic benefits for young people of the
530A Trump accounts, and is now in the process of challenging (if not, embarrassing)
these same politicians asking why they wish for children in their districts to
remain in perpetual poverty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXoj4oZgvW8&t=2132s)
However, and in fairness, this program is doubly despised by Democrats in
liberal states such as Connecticut. The same “Connecticut Voices For Children”
(funded by angry, older,wealthy Liberals) also condemns them; "Proponents
frame these as “freedom-based” fiscal tools. While all of this sounds good—for
clarity, there can be value in these types of accounts—this policy may
exacerbate racial inequality. Unlike Baby Bonds, a policy we’ve been
championing, Trump accounts are not equity-based by design. What’s more, Trump
accounts are private, market based investment vehicles intended as a diverted
payroll tax
alternative to traditional Social Security." (https://ctvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Candidate-Briefing-Book-2026-6.23.pdf).
How could the revered lunatics in this Liberal “Think Tank” ever arrive at such
nonsensical conclusions? How is this investment intended to a baby or a child
who is 5 years old or less be tabbed as a “Social Security” alternative? Are
these children working a job paying contributions under FICA? Do the “Voices”
(along with the equally mentally bereft Connecticut Treasurer Erick Russell)
feel that “Trump Accounts” are for “white kids only?” Why is it wrong with
teaching young people the value of savings (tax free), and creating the desire
to build wealth and economic freedom? With all that Connecticut spends on child
welfare, why are so many kids in poverty? I will note that the Executive
Director of Connecticut Voices For Children, Emily
Byrne received $160,776 in Compensation in 2024 along with "Other"
Compensation of $17,486. (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/61435280).
That is an awful lot of money to pay to someone who has no concept whatsoever of how economics really work.