With the news out that General Electric really and truly is seriously considering bailing on Connecticut (H/T: @JATranfo) because… well, because it’s a Democratic-controlled state that wishes to keep raising taxes. We might as well be honest about that. Anyway, the Democratic governor of Connecticut is, amazingly enough, actually worried about losing GE, to the point where he’s trying to stop the tax increases. But the sharks are still circling: Continue reading General Electric certainly ACTING like it’s considering bailing on Connecticut.
I fully expect that this tweet will get deleted very, very quickly:
Really sad to watch Obama haters attack this kid who CHOSE to fight to protect the rest of us, just to score political points.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 3, 2014
You have to wonder.
- First off, the DCCC is planning to dump about three quarters of a million dollars in ad buys for Esty’s campaign. This is a little surprising, because the actual Republican candidate for that district is still kind of up in the air.
- There’s also more than a touch of scandal potentially looming over Esty’s general campaign this year: back in 2013 she had to return campaign contributions that turned out to have come from companies and individuals who were simultaneously dealing with husband Dan Esty, in his role of state energy/environmental commissioner (Esty has since resigned his position).
- And now Elizabeth Esty is voting like a North Carolina Blue Dog trying to keep a shaky seat. Delays on Obamacare mandates (while still voting against repeal of the law). Voting to force Eric Holder to appoint a special counsel on the IRS scandal. And the latest: Esty’s fervent nega-embrace of ousted VA Secretary Eric Shinseki.
All in all, things sound like Elizabeth Esty is not happy with her internal polling. Which, if it is bad, would also have to be truly awful, given that we’re still waiting on the aforementioned GOP candidate for that district. Is there another shoe set to drop in that race, or is this just first-term jitters by the Congresswoman? Guess we’ll find out pretty soon.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
They had to set it up, though. First, the Washington Times hammered the Connecticut legislature for passing a law that maybe three hundred thousand gun owners are deliberately flouting. Then they noted that Connecticut doesn’t have the resources for putting all those people in jail. After that, and gently hinting that the recent problem that we’re having with over-militarized cops is not exactly compatible with a peaceful enforcement of the law, the WT goes in for the kill (in a manner of speaking):
The General Assembly must do what Congress did in repealing the speed limit in 1995 and the states did in ending Prohibition in 1933. If it saves just one life, it’s worth it.
Well, isn’t this just a fine how-do-you-do:
After tens of thousands of defiant gun owners in Connecticut chose not to register their semi-automatic rifles to comply with a hastily-passed gun control law, the state is now taking some action. Officials are reportedly notifying gun owners who submitted late applications that they have one last chance to get rid of their “illegal” weapons.
State officials did accept some gun registration applications that were submitted after the Jan. 4 deadline, however, not all late applications were accepted, the Journal Inquirer reports.
“But rather than turn that information over to prosecutors, state officials are giving the gun owners a chance to get rid of the weapons and magazines,” the report adds.
Both Reason and Instapundit have both roundly castigated the Hartford Courant’s faintly hysterical (in all senses of the term) editorial calling for Connecticut cops to harass Connecticut gun owners into providing something better than a 15% registration rate (at best) for their
Scary Evil Devil-Guns “military-style assault weapons.” Goodness knows the editorial deserved it, given that it seems to have been written by one of the most politically tone-deaf people in the country. I especially enjoyed this pious hope of the Courant’s:
Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it’s possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.
And yes, I am scoring this as disastrous:
More than 2,400 Connecticut customers who bought health plans on Access Health CT were given incorrect information about their insurance plans, in one case underestimating the maximum out-of-pocket by at least $4,000.
The website for Access Health CT, the state’s new health exchange, had incorrect information online about deductibles and co-insurance impacting all 19 individual health plans from the three insurance companies that offer those plans through the exchange: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Connecticut, ConnectiCare, and HealthyCT.
John Javaruski, a 62-year-old retired actuary from Farmington, said he received a letter dated Nov. 1 after he signed up for an Anthem plan with a $2,000 out-of-pocket maximum and zero deductible. According to the revised schedule of benefits attached to the letter, Javaruski’s plan jumped to $6,250 out of pocket and a $3,000 deductible.
It kind of helps if you think of a state as a business enterprise in these cases.
More than 80 movies featuring stars such as Jennifer Aniston, Tim Robbins and Michael Douglas have been filmed in Connecticut over the past seven years, thanks largely to $137.4 million in tax credits to film production companies.
But the parade of stars may stop: Connecticut, confronting budget difficulties and competition from other states—including New York—is putting the tax-credit program on a two-year hiatus.
The move comes as the state recommits to luring television-production enterprises, which it says offer the type of permanent jobs and investments that film outfits can’t.
Let’s look at the practical results of gun control, shall we? Three states have recently signed into law some hefty gun control laws; what were the results?
- Colorado: Magpul is now making some magazines and sights outside of the state. They’re also working on a new HQ.
- Connecticut: PTR Industries will be moving out of the state shortly. It’s rumored that other companies will follow.
- Maryland: Beretta’s pretty much just waiting for Martin O’Malley to sign a new gun control law next month*.
…and that’s pretty much it. Good-bye jobs, good-bye tax revenue, good-bye money circulation from the first two categories, and here’s the important point: there will be nothing to compensate for those losses. As usual, the new rules will do nothing to curb mass shootings; also as usual, the people who are patting themselves on the backs about forcing gun manufacturers out of particular states are not the sort of people who create new revenue-producing ventures. Put another way: they’re busy-bodies, not businessmen. Many of them would be vaguely insulted to be mistaken for businessmen. Continue reading Status check on various gunmakers’ flights from various states.
Via @vermontaigne comes this update on that snake-under-his-desk state Democratic politician who until quite recently was a power in the Connecticut legislature. Short version: the aforementioned sleazebag (one Ernest Hewett) turns out to have had a long history of being tacitly kept away from the female interns. In that last link, Chris Powell asks some questions:
For if Hewett really has “a history of bad behavior” toward female interns, why did his party’s leadership conceal it for so long?
Indeed, why was it concealed for so long even by female legislators on the intern committee like [Intern Committee co-chair Mae] Flexer?
And why did [Connecticut Speaker J Brendan] Sharkey appoint such a legislator deputy speaker?
The answers, of course, are as follows: Hewett is a Democrat; Flexer was expected by the male leadership to shut up and mind her place; and… well. If I were even to think the phrase “affirmative action” then I’d be branded a racist for that thought, of course. Besides, it’s an over-complicated answer anyway. It’s much simpler just to assume that the Connecticut Democratic leadership defaults to just not caring if one of their members act obnoxiously towards women.