For many years, I have written about the tax, spend, borrow, and waste death spiral of government, particularly evident in poorly run states such as Connecticut. For many years regardless of sound admonition, government has proceeded in taxing more, spending more, and creating more useless and redundant programs and non-jobs for the politically connected. Meanwhile, legitimate tax-paying businesses asking for no aid but wishing only for low taxes, friendly government and safe and clean communities are driven out of states like Connecticut by experiencing exactly the opposite of that. When the rate of legitimate business departures increases as the governmental and administrative state monster metastasizes, jobs become scarce, and welfare and dependency need increase. When joblessness continues for a protracted period, people become skillfully obsolete and unemployable. Rather than seeing the problems and righting the ship, visionless politicians with no sense or clue of what is necessary to fix a bad state and a bad economy cry and scream and pound the table concerning man’s inhumanity to man due to some intelligent men and women questioning this constant giant sucking mess that has effectively become the government. But the real man’s inhumanity to man factually rests with these same politicians complaining. Even a high-school graduate in his first apartment knows that he or she must generate enough inflow to exceed outflow. But this lesson is lost on about every politician, especially in places like Connecticut. So, what is the inevitable result? The dire situation becomes worse and continues to mushroom and then, something snaps.
To add to the pitiful nature of the Connecticut economy having over 25% of its population on Medicaid, over 360,000 Connecticut residents receive SNAP benefits (or roughly 11% of the state’s population). But if you read and believe the state-run propaganda that passes for reporting you are led to believe that President Donald J. Trump is cruel and inhumane for insisting that government finally clean itself out of waste, fraud, inefficiency and fiscal abuse, and that Connecticut is a state with a heart for the poor and downtrodden that its own political system has created. As one example, Governor Ned Lamont recently gave “Connecticut Foodshare” $3 million dollars to help offset the loss of SNAP benefits as cries of Trumpian cruelty reverberated across social media in the background. “This $3 million investment will make a real difference for families across Connecticut who are facing an impossible choice between paying rent and putting food on the table,” Connecticut Foodshare CEO Jason Jakubowski said. “While we recognize this funding cannot replace the full scale of federal SNAP benefits, it will help us to buy more food for agency partners and mobile pantries across the state over the next two weeks. We are grateful for the state’s leadership and commitment to protecting Connecticut’s most vulnerable residents.” (https://portal.ct.gov/governor/news/press-releases/2025/10-2025/governor-lamont-announces-emergency-funding-for-connecticut-foodshare?language=en_US).
Such a gesture on its face seems selfless and noble until one digs more at the ugly backside of the tax and spend economy, being multiple highly compensated and redundant nonprofit managers sitting in well-paid state-supported non-jobs consuming the resources intended for the poor. So, let’s examine Mr. Jacob Jakubowski, a politically-connected former Barack Obama delegate and a man with no particular experience in either the private sector nor in the food industry. For Fiscal Year 2024, Jason Jakubowski received Compensation of $292,739 and Other Compensation of $53,514 for a total of $346,253 a year. (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/61063025). This is inexplicably double his first-year salary as covered by my friend Tony De Angelo on his October 30 THIRTY WITH TONY show. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERBrM_zue1A) Due to the circulation of truthful information, many have asked if Jacob Jakubowski would refuse his pay so that money would go to feeding these hungry people during this crisis? But charity need not end at home! How about Ned and Annie Lamont picking up the tab for these benefits as a charitable donation? Forbes magazine has recently estimated their net family worth as $650 million dollars. Or in going National, Senator Richard Blumenthal and his family's net worth of a mere $85 million cam certainly kick in a few shekels. (https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/democrats/richard-blumenthal-net-worth/) . Actually, many liberal Democrat politicians could start to compassion for their treasured poor folk by giving their money to help fund this cause until their party would vote for either a budget and or a continuing resolution to reopen Washington. They could also refuse their salaries since many people in government are working without pay and what better way to show your solidarity with the unwashed masses?
But even so, more questions come to mind regarding SNAP benefits. Why are so many individuals in need of these benefits costing our country over $100 billion dollars- plus a year? Is there fraud and non-legal citizens receiving these benefits? In a country as wealthy as the United States why are so many individuals this much in need?
But once again, the poor slob taxpayer in places like Connecticut has no luxuries such as a shutdown. Please note that we are still paying Federal Taxes to our unopened government during this crisis but are not getting all the services we are paying for. That is fine with the minority Democrat Party in Congress and pitiful and ineffective bodies such as the Democrat-controlled Connecticut State Legislature. We are still hearing the daily bashing of all things President Trump by the state-run media. And we still see waste and fraud going unchecked at all levels of government as it arrogantly continues as a God-given right. Maybe those truly in need should continue to receive these benefits via a tougher litmus test while those using them fraudulently should flush out. Maybe nonprofit organizations feeding hungry people should not have paid employees nor politically connected executives. Maybe charities falling above the 25% of operating expenses-to-income ratio benchmark of “Charity Navigator” should not be able to bid for funding until they get their fiscal houses in order. Maybe charities that perform well should be expanded while others failing to meet the mark be disbanded. But the biggest “maybe” in enacting reforms would be to find politicians with enough courage to suggest even one such improvement and reform. Hope is not great in that regard, regardless of party label.
