Lawlor’s Violent Felonious Graduates

The piling-on began following admissions made by Lisa Wilson Foley that a contract between herself and John Rowland, a radio talk show host following his stint in prison, was fraudulent, and recently Mr. Rowland, a burr in the side of Governor Dannel Malloy, announced he had recorded his last show. On the political stump – the governor, like his beau ideal President Barrack Obama, is rarely off the political stump – Mr. Malloy, along with the usual media attack pack, had called upon WTIC to sever its relations with Mr. Rowland.

Even Mr. Malloy’s Undersecretary of Criminal Justice Michael Lawlor contributed his mite, according to a story in a New Haven paper. One of Mr. Rowland’s programs, Mr. Lawlor pointed out, “included talk about guns, and as a convicted felon, Rowland is ineligible to legally own one.”

Sure, sure. But the law – even the new gun law promulgated and supported by his eminence the Undersecretary of Criminal Justice Lawlor – is a mere inconvenience to felons bent on mayhem such as, to cite only one of 21,929 ex-felons, all graduates of Mr. Lawlor’s get-out-of-jail-early Risk Reduction Earned Credit (RREC) program, Frankie “The Razor” Resto.

Following his release from prison, Mr. Resto, one of the loads of felons given early release credits by Mr. Lawlor, procured a gun – illegally – and traveled to an EZMart in Meriden, where he murdered Ibrahim Ghazal, one of the store’s co-owners. Mr. Resto used hollow nosed bullets to assure fatality and shot Mr. Ghazal in the chest after Mr. Ghazal had obliged him by surrendering the cash in his register.

                                         

Mr. Resto, it turns out, was not the only felon awarded get-out-of-jail-early credits from Mr. Lawlor’s Risk Reduction Earned Credits Program, an Orwellian title designed to fool some of the people all of the time. Mr. Lawlor’s program, smuggled past the legislature in an omnibus implementer bill by the former co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, increases rather than reduces risks to the general public.

Although RREC was designed to tailor release credits to remediation programs involving individual prisoners, Mr. Lawlor approved the retroactively distribution of credits to inmates who had not satisfied program requirements. The bulk of credits were disbursed to felons who could not have benefited from Mr. Lawlor’s program. Republicans have urged many times that violent criminals convicted and sentenced for such crimes as rape, assault and arson (see below) should not be able to participate in Mr. Lawlor’s blood soaked program.

Apparently, Mr. Lawlor and his padrone, Mr. Malloy, are willing to write off as collateral damage the murders committed by Mr. Resto, awarded 199 RREC days credits, and Keslyn Mendez, (AKA) Willie Batts, who murdered a store clerk in Manchester after having been awarded 30 days RREC get-out-of-jail-early credits by Mr. Lawlor.

Until recently, the imperious Mr. Lawlor had been deaf to the pleas of his once fellow legislators. Owing to a stiff resolve on his part, nearly all the data surrounding the misnamed Risk Reaction Earned Credits Program was hidden in the weeds. Some of that information has now surfaced. As a result of the efforts of State Senator Joe Markley and former State Senator Len Suzio, Mr. Lawlor, under the pressure of an FOI complaint, has been forced to disgorge some telling data. Both Mr. Suzio and Mr. Markley have demanded that Mr. Lawlor release all the data relevant to his program -- especially information that touches upon recidivism rates. So far, Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Malloy have been able to shape the public discussion concerning the flawed RREC program which, despite its Orwellian title, will increase risks to public safety.

According to an information sheet released by Mr. Suzio, the data thus far released by Mr. Lawlor under pressure of an FOI request indicates:

·         From 9/1/2011 through 3/4/2014, 3,821.6 years of Early Release Credits were handed out to discharged prisoners.

·         More than 50% of the identified offenses are classified as either violent or serious.

A breakdown of crimes and number of offenses by crime category follows:

Arson: 41

Assault: 1,795

Burglary, Larceny, Robbery: 3,846

Child Pornography or Risk of Injury: 414

Drug related: 3,514

Illegal gun activity: 623

Kidnapping: 21

Murder, Homicide, Manslaughter: 129

Sexual Assault: 385

Violation of Protective or Restraining Order: 723

Prostitution: 98

Violation of parole: 4,730 (any prisoner on parole obviously had been convicted of a more serious crime earlier; the file, however, had only the latest offense for which the prisoner was imprisoned, i.e., violation of parole 53a‐32. Therefore the severity of the prisoner's offenses is not apparent in these records).

Other: 4,795 (260 had no "offense" codes, remainder were not assigned crime category)

Several prisoners received more than 6 years Early Release credits.

The newly acquired data, according to Mr. Suzio, applies only to “discharged” prisoners, not “released” prisoner: “The released group represents another 20,836 prisoners for the same time period. Furthermore, the file did not contain data on convicts remaining in prison, about 16,800 as of February 28, 2014. Thus the number of prisoners participating in the Early Release Program has been approximately 58,000 in the first 2.5 years.”

Connecticut Commentary previously has called upon Mr. Malloy to fire Mr. Lawlor.

Lawlor’s Stow-Away Bill

If Frankie “the Razor” Resto were an AR15 semi-automatic rifle and present laws banning him had been in effect on June 27, he would not have been permitted within spitting distance of Meridan when, newly released from prison, he entered an EZMart store and fatally shot its co-owner, Ibraham Ghazal, according to arrest records. But Mr. Resto was at that point only an ex-con who had been given get-out-of-jail-early credits under a problem plagued program that was the brainchild of Governor Dannel Malloy’s prison commisar, Mike Lawlor.

Mr. Resto's criminal resume was such that he should never have been given early release credits under any circumstances; he should never have been paroled, and he should have served his entire sentence behind bars. Following his release, Mr. Resto should have been monitored carefully by Mr. Lawlor’s somnolent watchdogs and rearrested if he so much as jaywalked.

But Mr. Resto never served his full sentence – because Mr. Lawlor is a penological utopianist whose views on prison reform bear the same relation to reality as does a fish to a bicycle. So far, Mr. Lawlor has been able to honey-tongue his way past two murders and more than 700 rearrests of prisoners given early release credits under his program.

But then, who’s counting? The answer to that question is: no one.

Michelle Cruz, Connecticut’s Victims Advocate, started to tote up the numbers, but her agitations on behalf of Mr. Ghazal’s still living family members so disturbed Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Malloy, who brooks no criticism that cannot be answered in one line quips on “Morning Joe,” that Ms. Cruz’s license to defend victims preyed upon by such as Mr. Resto was revoked. Her job was put on the block and, before you could say Cook County, Illinois is the most politically corrupt acreage in the nation, Ms. Cruz was replaced by a Chicago political operative who is certain to get along famously with Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Malloy and their prison reform measures.

Mr. Lawlor specializes in smuggling his problematic bills past the noses of his comrades on the judicial committee and foxing the foxes. He would make a super incorrigible prisoner, but perhaps not as accomplished as Mr. Resto, who managed while in prison to shake down inmates over drugs, to roughhouse with guards, to burn his mattress, perhaps in protest at having unjustly received 199 days off his sentence courtesy of Mr. Lawlor’s program, and to compile a disciplinary record that should be the envy of any member of the Latin King gang. Some prisoners do have a refined sense of justice, however incorrigible they may be. Incarceration, like the possibility of execution in the morning, clears the mind wonderfully – not that Mr. Resto needs to worry he will be executed for having murdered Mr. Ghazal. Following fierce urging from Mr. Lawlor when he was co-chair of the judiciary committee, the Democratic dominated General Assembly at long last abolished capital punishment in progressive Connecticut shortly after two paroled prisoners invaded a home in Cheshire and murdered three women, first having raped a mother and daughter, by setting their house on fire.

Mr. Lawlor, in a transparent attempt to smuggle his program past the noses of his more vigilant comrades in the legislature, initially packed his Risk Reduction Earned Creditsbill in an implementer suitcase; the implementer bill is last minute measure usually designed to implement budget provisions, and it has always been easy to hide a rat in such omnibus bills.

This time around, Mr. Lawlor has attached his so called“reform” legislation putatively correcting problems in his program to a larger bill banning so called “assault” weapons; this after ranking member of the judiciary committee Senator John Kissel, during a special hearing on the defects of Mr. Lawlor’s problem infested program, put Mr. Lawlor on notice that members of the committee wanted to address the defects of his program in a stand-alone bill so that legislators might cast an honest up or down vote on his readjusted bill.

Mr. Lawlor’s proposed “reform” considerably worsens his present blood stained program because it codifies its most glaring defect and invites the imprimatur of a distracted General Assembly . The problem with Lawlor’s law is that it bestows upon violent criminals the same get-out-of-jail-early credits properly given to inmates who have not been convicted and sentenced for such crimes as rape, kidnapping, arson, first-degree manslaughter, assault of a pregnant woman, first degree assault, second degree strangulation, first degree threatening, having sex with someone under the age of 13, assault of a blind or disabled person and animal cruelty.

The preponderance of testifiers at the hearing -- including Democratic state senator Danté Bartolomeo, who replaced perhaps the most ardent opponent of Mr. Lawlor’s program, Len Suzio, and who now represents stricken Meriden in the General Assembly – spoke in favor of a re-draft that would separate the categories of violent prisoners mentioned above from Mr. Lawlor’s early release credit program.

Mr. Suzio recently characterized Mr. Lawlor’s measure, stowed in the gun control bill affirmed by the Senate on April 4 and codifying the present arrangement suitable to Mr. Lawlor, as a “dangerous joke” and fraud upon the public. It is also a fraud upon Mr. Lawlor’s former colleagues who serve on the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee. It’s only a matter of time before yet another early-released criminal, his pockets bulging with good-time credits given to him by Mr. Lawlor, is prematurely set free to murder or rape some other Connecticut citizen who quite possibly had voted for Mr. Lawlor prior to his political assent as Mr. Malloy’s commissar of prisons.

A Citizen’s Case Against The Malloy-Lawlor Early Release Program

When the Democratic dominated General Assembly perhaps unwittingly passed Bill HB 6650 establishing a Risk Reduction Earned Credits program for some prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes, the opposition from Republicans was nearly instantaneous. Then State Senator Len Suzio took the lead in agitating against the program. He was not alone.

In a June 6, 2011 media release,State Senator Joe Markley said that the program “amounts to a jail break.” Mr. Markley went on to list the categories of violent prisoners eligible for early release under the program:

Manslaughter in the first degree (with intent to cause serious injury)

Sexual assault in the first degree (sex with someone under the age of 13)

Kidnapping in the first degree (intent to inflict physical injury)

Arson in the first degree (intent to destroy an inhabited building)

Employing a minor in an obscene performance

Importing child pornography

Contaminating a public water supply or food supply for terrorist purposes

Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children

Abandonment of child under the age of six years

Firearms trafficking (knowingly giving a firearm to someone barred from firearm possession)

Cruelty to animals (possessing an animal for fighting, intentionally killing a police dog)”

After two credited criminals celebrated their early release by murdering two shopkeepers, one in Meriden and one in Manchester, some media outlets began to take notice of deficiencies in the program. But even so, the drumbeat against early release was hardly ear-shattering. Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Malloy hunkered down and hoped for a reduction in the decibel level.

Connecticut Victims Advocate Michelle Cruz stirred the pot when, representing the interests of victimized families -- her job -- she publically petitioned for an end to the program after the early release of prisoner Kezlyn Mendez, charged with the murder of a store clerk in Manchester. Ms. Cruz’s job was put on the auction block by Mr. Malloy, and she has now been replaced by Garvin Ambrose, a political operative from Cook County, Illinois, murder capital of the United States. Mr. Ambrose was cited by a victims advocate group in Illinois as having been insufficiently concerned with the rights of crime victims.

The early release of Frankie “The Razor” Resto, so called because in freedom he was known for shaking down drug dealers with a razor, proved somewhat difficult to justify.

Mr. Resto was, by all accounts, an incorrigible prisoner. Behind bars he dealt drugs, racked up a disciplinary record that should have made him ineligible for early release and burned his mattress. The Lawlor-Malloy early release program was applied retroactively to the violent prisoners noted above in Mr. Markley’s press release, which means that in many cases accessibility to the program did not depend on good behavior. While serving time for a 2006 robbery conviction, Mr. Resto was allotted 199 days of credits toward early release. In Mr. Resto’s case, a violent prisoner was rewarded with early release credits for behavior that should have extended his sentence. The Lawlor-Malloy program was all carrot and no stick. Once out of jail, Mr. Resto illegally acquired a gun and murdered Ibraham Ghazal, the co-owner of an EZMart store in Meriden, according to arrest records.

The ham-fisted attempt by the Malloy administration to sanitize the predictable effects of its flawed early release program by ridding the political stage of opponents pointing to the blood on the floor may not succeed.

After political operatives in the General Assembly bound by party ties to the governor successfully smothered Republican introduced bills to eliminate the program and bills introduced by Senators Paul Doyle of Wethersfield and John Kissel of Enfield to exclude violent prisoners from the program, Senator Joe Markey forced the Judiciary Committee to draft and schedule legislation for a public hearing by resorting to a petitioning procedure authorized in the General Assembly’s joint rules.

A bill conceived by Mr. Markley and state Representative Alfred Adnolfi of Cheshire that first proposed to prevent the violent convicts categorized above from participating in the early release program has now been redrafted and resubmitted. Mr. Lawlor recently told the Waterbury Republican American that he "had no problem" accepting a bill adding language to the current legislation clarifying that violent offenders cannot earn credits towards early release. On other occasions he has said that that the early release program would not work if his program allowing credits to the categories of crimes listed by Mr. Markley were to be altered. A citizens’ petition designed to catch the eye of those legislators who, perhaps unwittingly, have facilitated two murders in Connecticut communities may be found here.

A citizens’ petition designed to catch the eye of those legislators who, perhaps unwittingly, have facilitated two murders in Connecticut communities may be found here.

Governance in a Constitutional Republic, particularly when it impacts the safety of citizens, is too important to be left to artful politicians. The petition should be widely circulated and signed. The hearing should be well attended. When good citizens are silent, liberty and safety are put on the auction block.

Former Senator Len Suzio appointed to the Office of Victim Advocate Advisory Committee

Former State Senator Len Suzio announced today that he has been appointed to the Advisory Committee for the Office of Victim Advocate. "I am extremely happy to be appointed to the Committee. The OVA plays an important role advocating for the victims of crime in Connecticut. Last year I had the opportunity to meet and work with the State Victim Advocate, Michelle Cruz as we sought to reform the "Early Release" law that allows violent criminals out of prison long before their sentences are completely served. All too often violent criminals are out of jail before their innocent victims are out of the hospital." said the former state senator.


"My experience working with the OVA last year helped me to appreciate the critical role the OVA plays providing support to the victims of crime in Connecticut. I want to do whatever I can to assure a vigorous and active Victim Advocate in our state. I want to make certain that the rights of crime victims are not run over roughshod by criminal rights lawyers and their political sympathizers", said former Senator Suzio.


"I am looking forward to working with the Office of Victim Advocate and supporting the Office as it advocates for the rights of those who have suffered so much at the hands of hardened criminals. I also am looking forward to a continuation of the exchange I had last year with Undersecretary Michael Lawlor regarding the fatally flawed Early Release Law. I believe my membership on the Committee will give me the opportunity to continue my advocacy to change this controversial and flawed law", Senator Suzio concluded.

The Lawlor-Malloy Early Release Program and the Public Good

It has been well established ever since Governor Dannel Malloy had been hoisted into the governor’s office by a slim vote margin that Mr. Malloy rarely has met a political opportunity he has not eagerly taken advantage of.

If former Governor Jodi Rell was modest in this regard, Mr. Malloy is in comparison shameless. In the last few weeks alone, Mr. Malloy has appeared as a speaker at the Democratic National Convention where he gleefully skewered Republicans; he joined a picket line to express his solidarity with union strikers; he traveled to China, where forced abortions are routine, to curry favor with Chinese leaders, presumably with a view of increasing China’s market share in Connecticut. The long list unreels in tandem with Mr. Malloy’s crowded calendar. Mr. Malloy’s grasp extends much further than those of his Connecticut critics, none of whom make regular appearances on National TV shows such as "Morning Joe.”

Courant OK’s Defective Risk Reduction Earned Credits Program

The Hartford Courant has ignored its own admittedly unscientific poll, which asks “Should inmates be able to earn early release with re-entry programs?”

Of the 508 responses received by the paper, 89 percent of respondents answered that question “No.”The number of those answering “Yes” was a slender 11 percent. On the basis of a recent editorial,“Give Inmates A Better Chance On The Outside,” one must assume the Courant editorial page editors fall among the 11 percenters.

Lawlor Fails to Discriminate

It cannot be a good sign that Michael Lawlor, Governor Dannel Malloy’s undersecretary for criminal justice policy at the Office of Policy and Management, seems incapable of making a proper distinction between violent prisoners under his jurisdiction and non-violent prisoners.

Purely as a practical matter, the distinction was dramatically illustrated when Frankie Resto, released from prison early after having received credits under the General Assembly’s new Risk Reduction Earned Credits program, entered an EZ Mart store in Meriden and shot to death co-owner of the store Ibrahim Ghazal, who handed over the money he demanded to Mr. Resto before he was shot, according to police reports.

Other reports demonstrate that Mr. Resto should not have been a candidate for early release under a flawed program that awards credits to violent criminals. The bill establishing the program was rushed through the legislature during its final hectic days, without the benefit of public hearings and over the voluble objections of Republicans in both chambers.

The chief objection of Republicans as the bill was pushed through the sausage machine during a session that in the past had been utilized to finalize budgets was that the Risk Reduction Earned Credits program could endanger the public welfare because it provided early release to certain violent criminals in prison for having committed such felonies as: the violation of a protective order; carrying a dangerous weapon; attempted arson, a 3rd Degree felony; burglary, a 3rd Degree felony; molestation of children and rape.

Enter Mr. Resto.

A series of reports in the Meriden Record Journal, the newspaper of record in the town in which Mr. Resto murdered Mr. Ghazal, provides according to arrest records several snapshots of the newly released Mr. Resto energetically being himself.

Mr. Resto, nom de guerre “Razor,” was the intended target of a 2006 fatal stabbing, apparently of a drug deal gone wrong. Public records detailing crimes such as these are available to anyone with a computer and a mouse, not excluding those responsible for handing out early release credits under the state’s hastily passed Risk Reduction Earned Credits program. The information – can anyone believe it? --is readily available even to an undersecretary for criminal justice policy at the Office of Policy and Management such as Mr. Lawlor.

However, in recent days the governor’s office has been concerned with the messenger of bad news rather than the predictable consequences of the seriously flawed Risk Reduction Earned Credits program passed by the General Assembly approved by both Mr. Malloy and Mr. Lawlor.

That would be state Senator Len Suzio, who lives in Meriden four streets away from the scene of Mr. Resto’s mayhem.

In reported interviews with several media outlets, Mr. Lawlor has charged that Mr. Suzio has involved himself with family members of the murdered Mr. Ghazal not because the family members – and everyone else in the state -- need his assistance in repairing Gibraltar sized breeches in the new legislation but because Mr. Suzio is a political opportunist, playing fast and loose with emotions rubbed raw by a convicted criminal known for shaking down drug dealers who murdered their father and who was given get-out-of-jail early credits under Mr. Lawlor’s misconceived program.

This guy Suzio, Mr. Lawlor insisted, is a hypocrite… because…

Because Mr. Suzio, WHO FAVORS MR. LAWLOR’S RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM ONLY FOR NON-VIOLENT CRIMINALS,wrote a letter recommending early release under the program for a non-violent criminal convicted of embezzlement. In the course of his letter, Mr. Suzio pointedly made the proper distinction between violent and non-violent criminals: “With the new early release legislation, people who are incarcerated for much more severe crimes such as rape and assault will be able to get an early release for good behavior. I believe it makes more sense for the residents of Connecticut to have non-violent prisoners released early verses those with a violent record.”

Mr. Lawlor has, even now, pointedly ignored the all important distinction. This failure to discriminate between violent and non-violent applicants to the program is at the root of its failure. And Mr. Lawlor in making this point – with considerable help from the architects of the failed Risk Reduction Earned Credits program – is by no means alone.

Andrew Roraback, recently endorsed by the Hartford Courant as a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in the 5th District, responded to the preventable murder in Meriden when asked about it by Al Terzi and Laurie Perez on Fox News’ The Real Story (Pertinent remarks at 5:45):

“I objected to this program when it was passed in May of 2011 in the dark of night by a Democratic legislature without the benefit of a public hearing and over the objections of the Commissioner of Corrections who said we should only do an early release program for non-violent offenders. What the governor and the Democrats pushed through to save money at the expense of public safety was an early release program which allowed serial rapists, child molesters, repeat drunk drivers who have killed innocent people to be given good time credit retroactively for five years. And I think everyone knew it was just a matter of time before one of these people who was released before they were supposed to be released did something terrible. And my heart goes out to the family in Meriden who are suffering the consequences of the irresponsible actions taken in the legislation. And I hope that next year, the legislature will see fit to repeal this bill and make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.”

And even Mr. Suzio’s Democratic opponent in the upcoming 13th District race has made the same point: “It’s important that we keep our hardened criminals behind bars, and that we also at the same time recognize that non-violent criminals who do have the opportunity for rehabilitation have that through this program.”

So then, in what sense are Mr. Lawlor’s spurious charges against Mr. Suzio not a) political or b) hypocritical?

And whose risks are reduced by allowing violent incarcerated criminals access to a program that should be utilized only by non-violent criminals?

Mr. Malloy, once a prosecutor and a courageous Irishman who fearlessly leaps into controversies in which even angels fear to tread, has so far maintained a discreet distance concerning the pain felt by Mr. Ghazal’s family.

When Mr. Ghazal’s son Fapyo first laid eyes on Mr. Resto at an arraignment in Meriden Superior Court on July 13, he said, “He is a bad guy. He is like a monster. I cannot look into his face,” and of Suzio the hypocrite Fapyo said, “What he tries to do is very good. We will try to work together and change the law.”

When reporters questioned Fapyo at a petition signing at the site of his father’s murder a few days ago, they supposed he spoke haltingly because he was unfamiliar with the American tongue. His real trouble was that he was beaten so savagely while working at another convenience store that the beating left him scared in body and mind.

Still he managed to tell me this story: In Jordan, his father always had spoken in glowing terms of America, so that his dreams colored their own hopes and imaginings.

“We all wanted to come to America, work hard. And now look?”

In “America, America”a book and later a film by Eliza Kazan about his Uncle’s journey to America from Anatolia, the central character speaks for all immigrants when he says, “America is not even a country. It is an emotive idea.”

When Mr. Ghazal’s family was discussing funeral arrangements following his murder, some assumed the patriarch of the family wished to be buried in Jordan. Fapyo interposed and said “No. Dad told me he loved America and he wanted to be buried in America, his new home."

And that is why when a reporter asked Fapyo to step before the mics and answer a few questions, not fifty feet from where his father was fatally shot, among the last words he shared with the reporters were “God bless America."

There are only 6 crimes excluded from the unreconstructed Risk Reduction Earned Credits program, capital murder among them. Sentences for rape, arson, sex with a child under 13, poisoning the water supply as a terrorist act and others are subject to reductions. Mr. Lawlor, it would appear, is lost to any appeals of the heart. But the family whose father was murdered may have better luck appealing to Mr. Malloy’s wife Kathy, who ran a rape crisis center.

Lawlor the Lawgiver

State Senator Len Suzio held a news conference in the Legislative Office Building, sparsely attended by the public but well attended by the state’s media, to call public attention to what he regards as serious failures in Connecticut’s newly adopted and Orwellian named early release Risk Reduction Earned Credits program. The title of the program begs the question -- Risk Reduction for whom?

Certainly IbrahimGhazal’s risk of getting murdered as he was peaceably going about his daily business at an EZ Mart store in Meriden was not reduced after the program was hastily adopted in a legislative session normally devoted to budget fixes. A Democratic dominated General Assembly joined at the hip to the first Democratic governor in more than 20 years, Dannel Malloy, has made it possible for ambitious Democrats to pass hastily contrived bills through a sausage making assembly line that in the past was considerably more thoughtful and deliberative.

Police have arrested Frankie Resto, a prisoner who had been given early release credits under the provisions of the General Assembly’s new law, for the murder of Mr. Ghazal.

In the blink of an eye this session, Democrats were able to abolish the death penalty – by arguing that the prospect of death does not deter capitol felonies. At the time of passage, Connecticut Commentary argued that if capital punishment had no deterrent value at all, no punishment, however minor, could deter crime. At times the Democrats appeared to be arguing for the abolition of punishment as well as capital punishment.

The bill abolishing the death penalty, passed by Democrats over the muted objections of an emasculated Republican minority, applied abolition prospectively. The bill was crafted so as not to affect the Connecticut 11, capitol felons presently awaiting execution on death row.

Thanks to a cowardly Democratic majority in the General Assembly, Connecticut is now prepared to execute 11 men in the absence of a law mandating execution for heinous crimes, oblivious of the natural law informing all jurisprudence, according to which men may not arbitrarily be punished in the absence of a law prescribing punishment: Nulla poena sine lege -- “Where there is no law, there is no transgression” – is, outside of the totalitarian state, a part of the Natural Law that informs Western laws and ethics. The natural law, in its varying permutations, may be found in the Torah, the Sermon on the Mount, the Magna Carta, statutory law and the U.S. Constitution. Alas, Connecticut’s General Assembly and its governor, formerly a prosecutor, are untouched by it.

Mr. Suzio’s too loud objections to the hastily written and poorly applied Risk Reduction Earned Credits program has produced a sour note from Michael Lawlor, who had served in the General Assembly for a quarter century before accepting a well paid position among Malloyalists as the governor’s undersecretary for criminal justice policy and planning at the Office of Policy and Management. As co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lawlor was practiced at sliding dubious legislation past his Republican comrades on the committee, not always successfully.

“The idea that you could take a tragedy of what happened in Meriden, this murder, and turn it into some sort of a political football is really outrageous,” Lawlor told a reporterfor CTNewsJunkie. “I think it’s extremely irresponsible to capitalize on a tragedy like this.” Mr. Lawlor added that if Mr. Suzio was serious about getting something done, he wouldn’t be holding a press conference, because that’s not how public policy is changed in the Malloy regime.

Mr. Suzio, as well as family victims left in grief by behavior even Mr. Lawlor might consider anti-social, do not agree with that assessment.

Mr. Lawlor argues that under the previous program, Mr. Resto would have been released earlier. Mr. Suzio argues that Mr. Resto was released early under the auspices of the new Risk Reduction Earned Credits program, and the credits that served as his get-out-of-jail-early card should never have been applied in a rigorous and fault free early release program.

“He [Mr. Resto] actually got drunk in prison at one point in time,” Suzio said at his press conference.“He set a fire in a prison, yet he still earned 199 days early release credits?”

To date, 7,589 prisoners, many convicted of violent felonies, have been released early under the provisions of the retroactively applied Risk Reduction Earned Credits program. Where will they be living, asks State Victim Advocate Michelle Cruz? The state, she points out, has only 1180 beds at half way houses and 3,500 behavioral slots available to those who receive early release. Who is supervising their release? Have they been given psychiatric evaluation before release? How are the credits applied?

“Many of the offenders are being granted RREC for simply signing up for a program rather than completing the program. For example,” Ms. Cruz said, “a sex offender who refuses to sign up for sex offender treatment as required, is instead signing up for programs such as study of the Philippines. Once they sign up they are receiving credits to get out early,”

In her research, Ms. Cruz cites inmates denied parole for failure to complete required programs while at the same time earning risk reduction credits for enrolling in programs they do not need. “For example a sex offender who refuses to sign up for sex offender treatment as required, is instead signing up for programs such as study of the Philippines. Once they sign up they are receiving credits to get out early,” said Cruz.

Ms. Cruz has asked the Department of Correction to calculate the recidivism rates of the 7,589 inmates released through the program.

The most recent study of recidivism within the Connecticut Department of Correction, completed in February of 2012 by the State Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division of the Office of Policy and Management, followed 14,398 male sentenced offenders after they were released or discharged from a prison facility in 2005, providing a five year review of recidivism. The study found that within five years of their release; 79 percent were re-arrested, 69 percent were convicted of a new crime, and 50 percent were returned to prison with a new sentence.

The study also found that; 50 percent of the offender group had served at least one sentence for violating the terms of their probation, 46 percent had served time in prison for a drug charge and 19 percent had served a prior sentence for driving under the influence or alcohol or drugs.

Reviewing the cases of 773 early release inmates returned to custody for either committing a new offense or violation of probation or parole, Ms. Cruz has discovered that many were re-arrested for: Violation of a protective order (felony); Carrying a dangerous weapon (felony); Attempt to commit arson 3rd Degree(felony); Burglary 3rd (felony); Attempt to commit arson 1st degree (felony).

Surely such data would be of interest to legislative Democrats in the General Assembly who may have prematurely approved the Risk Reduction Earned Credits program.

At one point in his news conference, Mr. Suzio hoisted in the air, none too steadily, a bulging file containing the prison discipline records of one of the graduates of the new Risk Reduction Earned Credits program.

Perhaps he should have mailed it to Mr. Lawlor.

Mr. Ghazal’s murder occurred four streets down from Mr. Suzio’s residence in Meriden, and it demonstrates, Mr. Suzio said during his inconvenient press availability, that theRisk Reduction Earned Credits program could use a bit of fine tuning, a suggestion to which the governor and Commissioner of Department of Prisons Leo Arnone so far have turned a deaf ear; now comes Mr. Lawlor sniping that Mr. Suzio is exploiting a murder purely for political purposes.

Pray, was the prospective provision in the death penalty abolition bill not inserted into that piece of legislation for political reasons? And was the abolition bill favored by Democrats and Malloyalists not created by politicians? And may it not be said of that measure that Democrats in the General Assembly, in the course of passing the bill, made rather extravagant appeals to emotional sentiments to insure passage of the legislation? In ordinary political parlance, we call this politicians being politicians.

Mr. Suzio, quite reasonably, is trying to assemble information that will allow him to improve a program hastily pushed through the legislature. So far, he has been met with prevarications, information supplied to him that is at best ambiguous if not misleading, and charges from Mr. Lawlor that he is exploiting for political purposes the pain caused by a criminal whose record WHILE INCARCERATED IN PRISON suggests that he never should have been given early release credits through the General Assembly’s hastily devised – and apparently non-adjustable– risk laden Risk Reduction Earned Credits program.

In passing the program, the General Assembly blew on a dandelion full of seeds that will take root everywhere in Connecticut, not only in Meriden. When a legislature enacts a bill, it must own the real time consequences of the bill. And the media should be asking: Whose risks are reduced by Governor Malloy’s and Mr. Lawlor’s and the Democratic dominated General Assembly’s Risk Reduction Earned Credits program?

But first, they will have to get past Mr. Lawlor’s political spam.

She’s Not Okay

"She's not okay, always crying," said Tharwat, "holding my father's clothes, smelling his clothes, it's not easy."

Tharwat Ghazalis the surviving daughter of 70-year-old Ibrahim Ghazal, who was murdered in an Easy Mart in Meriden on June 27th.

The presumptive murderer of Mr. Tharwat is Frankie Resto, who was given a get-out-of-jail-early card by Democrats in Connecticut’s legislature during the last days of its hectic session.

“A candidate for the state’s new Risk Reduction Earned Credit Program, Connecticut Commentary has noted previously http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2012/07/risky-risk-reduction-earned-credit.html, “Mr. Resto, was given a reduction in his sentence. The legislation that created the program was made retroactive by the Democratic dominated legislature, which means its provision applied to prisoners serving time before the bill’s enactment."

Accused store owner killer was let out of jail early: wwlp.com

The Risky Risk Reduction Earned Credit Program

On July 6, two days after Independence Day, the children of Meriden store owner Ibraham Ghazal were featured in the Meriden Record Journal. Very likely they would have preferred to remain in obscurity, but the murder of their father had thrust notoriety upon them.

A little more than a week earlier, the father of Tamer and Tharwat Ghazal had been shot and killed in the store he owned with a partner by a gunman who, it later was determined, had been a candidate for a Risk Reduction Credit Program passed into law by the General Assembly at the end of its hectic session.

Tamer Ghazal, an attorney from Jordan, was reluctant to talk about the murder. But when he was told by the paper’s reporter that the likely gunman who had killed his father had been released from prison without having served his full sentence for an earlier robbery, he asked, “How did he get out early?”

A bewildered store clerk working the cash register at the EZ Mart during the crime – Mr. Ghazal surrendered the cash on demand but was murdered anyway – observed, “He should not be walking the streets. How can they leave him this way? He is a dangerous man.”

Sentenced for first degree robbery in January 2007 to thirteen years in prison -- suspended after six and a quarter years -- and three years probation, Frankie Resto, later arrested as the gunman, had been released from prison on April 12, seven months before his term was due to expire.

A candidate for the state’s new Risk Reduction Earned Credit Program, Mr. Resto, was given a reduction in his sentence. The legislation that created the program was made retroactive by the Democratic dominated legislature, which means its provision applied to prisoners serving time before the bill’s enactment.

The answer to Mr. Tharwat’s question very likely will not please him. Mr. Resto was let free seven months before his due date for release because the General Assembly – some say to reduce prison costs at a time when the state’s budget is once again in arrears – wrote into law a program that permits violent criminals to shave time off their sentences for good behavior while in prison.

Undersecretary for criminal justice policy at the state Office of Policy and Management Michael Lawlor has said that the new Risk Reduction Earned Credit Program simply moves the date of parole, and he pointed out that not everyone is offered parole, news that is not likely to comfort the children of Mr. Ghazal.

Mr. Resto, said Mr. Lawlor, was flagged as a high-risk inmate and served 91 percent of his sentence. Under the old dispensation, he would have been released earlier: “If we went back to the way it was a year ago, he would have gotten out earlier. We prefer a system where we identify who is a higher risk and they serve a larger portion of their sentence. Had he gotten no credits he would have served three or four months longer. But under the old system, he would have been paroled earlier.” One of the purposes of the new bill, Mr. Lawlor said, was to reduce recidivism, a purpose wasted upon Mr. Resto.

Any connection between recidivism and the state’s new Risk Reduction Earned Credit Program may not be obvious to the children of Mr. Ghazal – or, indeed, anyone else. Is Mr. Lawlor seriously suggesting that a program designed to reduce risks to prison officials posed by the unacceptable behavior of those in prison will also reduce the possibility of repetitive criminal activity when released prisoners are no longer under the jurisdiction of prison administrators? Do the names Hayes and Komisarjevsky ring a bell? Is it possible that Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Malloy, a former prosecutor, do not understand that prisoners are called “cons” for good reason?

Len Suzio, a state Senator whose district includes Meriden, said that the crime “underscores a problem with this new law. How could he have gotten out early? He earned those credits. How could a guy with such a violent record get those credits?”

Mr. Suzio’s view that violent criminals should not be eligible for the program struck a responsive chord with his Democratic opponent in the 13th District Senate race, Dante Bartolomeo, who agreed that “It shouldn’t be used for violent offenders. Clearly this gentleman should not have been released early.”

Perhaps on behalf of the children of the murdered Mr. Ghazal, Ms. Bartolomeo might have a word with Mr. Lawlor, who might just want to plant a word in Governor Dannel Malloy’s ear. The most partisan governor in two decades, Mr. Malloy has not been receptive to suggestions made by Republicans.

A governor intent on giving prison administrators tools he hopes may create a more manageable prison environment never-the-less is constitutionally obligated to protect the public from murderers, rapists and other violent criminals bent on mayhem. The FIRST and most important duty of a government is to protect its citizens from violent predators whose sentences should never have been reduced to accommodate prison officials.

A Bad Editorial Worsened

"A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again” – Alexander Pope

The following paragraph, which appeared in a Hartford Courant editorial, “A Bad Bill Worsened,” a day after April Fool’s Day, is itself more shallow than most of the assertions made by the paper in a previous thoughtless editorial:

“The state is forgoing much-needed revenue — about $27 million a year at the current price level —that most drivers won't miss. This is money that could be used to balance the budget or to repair bridges and roads — an area the state is short on by $1.4 billion. Research indicates that poor roads increase maintenance costs. So pennies' worth of savings for drivers could mean millions of dollars in repair costs for the state.”

The state -- by which we are to understand Governor Dannel Malloy and the Democratic dominated General Assembly but not, pointedly, the people of the state – instituted the largest broad based tax increase in Connecticut’s history days after the elevation to the governorship of the first Democratic chief executive in more than twenty years

The notion that such a tax increase, levied to pay for the improvident spending of previous Republican governors and the Democratic dominated General Assembly, is GOOD for those people in the state who pay taxes is a matter much open to dispute, since progressive taxation generally moves money from productive citizens to rarely satisfied, ever demanding tax consumers. The vehicle by which such taxes are distributed is, of course, state government.

In view of the largest tax increase in state history, one might quarrel with the editorial writers of the Courant on a few points.

Is the $27 million in tax revenue the state will “forego” as a result of the tax relief provided by the bill to which the paper objects so vehemently in two editorials really needed by the state? Is it not possible, for instance, for such a tax pinched governing authority to move into road maintenance all the money it gives as gifts to profit rich crony capitalist companies?

The paper argues in its editorial that tax payers will not miss the tax relief provided by the bill capping the gross receipts tax because it is so small as to be almost negligable, little more than a pea under the princess’ massive tax mattress.

If this is true, will not the loss of revenue to the state be even more negligible? State appropriations, after the largest increase in Connecticut history, are cresting at about $21 billion each fiscal year, a figure that would have horrified former Governor William O’Neill, the last Democratic governor to hold office before the advent of Mr. Malloy, whose last budget was a modest $7.5 billion. So insignificant is the tax relief provided by the Len Suzio inspired gross receipts cap bill, Courant editorialists argue in their brief for higher taxes and increased spending, that “most drivers won’t miss” the savings they will realize when the tax is capped, an objection to tax relief that parallels that of Queen Marie Antoinette. If taxes were so high as to cause the well plucked pre-revolutionary citizens of France to forgo meat, said the soon to beheaded Queen, “Let them eat cake.”

Somewhat like the editors of the Courant, the aristocracy of France in months and years before the storming of the Bastille failed to identify the state with the people of France, a lapse in judgment noticed by Danton and Robespierre, preferring instead to conflate the state with the king and state administrators in the manner of Louis XIV, the “Sun King,” who is reputed to have said, “L'Etat c'est Moi” -- I am the state. The Sun King’s death bed confession to his successors, however, is generally forgotten by those who conflate the administrative and taxing power of the state with the people: “Do not follow the bad example which I have set you. I have often undertaken war too lightly and have sustained it for vanity. Do not imitate me, but be a peaceful prince, and may you apply yourself principally to the alleviation of the burdens of your subjects” –chiefly the extravagant taxes imposed on the people by the sovereign state.

Not only will the tax cap savings fail to resister with gas consumers but, the Courant adds ominously, the taxes lost “could be used to balance the budget or to repair bridges and roads — an area the state is short on by $1.4 billion. Research indicates that poor roads increase maintenance costs. So pennies' worth of savings for drivers could mean millions of dollars in repair costs for the state.”

Somehow, the Courant fails to note in its editorial that about half of the tax on gas the state collects – about fifty cents per gallon-- is dumped into the general fund, which perhaps would explain why the Malloy administration is short on its bridge and road repair obligations by about $1.4 billion; deferred obligations do add up quickly.

Nor does the Courant note that “the state” – by which the paper means the state’s governing apparatus -- has improvidently given away tax dollars it otherwise might have used for bridge and road repairs to large and prosperous too-big-to-fail Connecticut corporations in order to bribe such companies to remain in the state rather than seek out more low tax, low regulation environments elsewhere in what is becoming the United States Of Crony Capitalism.

It is always best for those who favor increasing spending and taxes not to drink too deeply of the economic Pierian Spring.

On Gas and Gasbags

According to some reports, gas prices are due to increase as much as 60 cents on the gallon by summer.

Citing rising gas prices, up 83 percent under his tenure, President Barack Obama has called for an extension of the payroll tax cut as a means of providing some relief to a Middle Class hard hit by the malingering Obama recession.

“Allowing this tax cut to expire,” Mr. Obama said, “would make people’s lives harder right now. It would make their choices more difficult. It would be $40 less for groceries to feed your kids; it would be $40 less for the medications you depend on; $40 less to cover bills and the rent; $40 less to take care of an elder parent, or to donate to a church or a charity.”

CNSNews points out, “When Obama entered the White House in January 2009, the city average price for one gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.79, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figures are in nominal dollars: not adjusted for inflation. Five months later in June, unleaded gasoline was $2.26 per gallon, an increase of 26 percent. By December 2011, the price of regular unleaded gas per gallon was $3.28, an 83 percent increase from January 2009.”

Prices on commodities generally rise for two reasons. Either a shortage of the product or an increase in demand will make gas more expensive; therefore, it follows that an increase in the supply of the product will lower the price of gas. Mr. Obama’s government does not wish to pursue an energy policy that will reduce the price of gas by increasing the supply of the product – easily done by tapping into plentiful supplies both in the United States and Canada -- because the administration wishes to encourage the production of cars that do not use gas. Also, the federal government winks at high gas prices because federal and state revenues rise in direct proportion to increases in the price of gas.

Here in Connecticut, which has the second highest gas tax in the nation, Republican State Senator Len Suzio has crafted a bill that will cap the notorious 7.35 percent Gross Receipts Tax at three dollars a gallon. Without the cap, the hidden gross receipts tax rises in tandem with the rise in the price of gas. The state of Connecticut reaps about 50 cents per gallon of gas from Connecticut’s excise and gross receipt taxes. About 23 cents per gallon is sucked out of taxpayer’s wallets and purses by the aptly named GROSS Receipts Tax. Mr. Suzio’s proposed cap will, of course, mean less tax revenue for the state’s incontinent Big Spenders in the General Assembly, the majority of them Democrats who have not taken a shine to Mr. Suzio’s version of Mr. Obama’s Middle Class tax relief bill.

Democratic Senator Paul Doyle of Wethersfield, for instance, cautioned that “people should not be fooled into thinking the plan will translate to relief at the gas pump… Not only does this proposal fail to rein in out-of-control gas prices, but it would dramatically reduce revenue needed to repair bridges and roads throughout the state, projects that would in turn create jobs. While I appreciate the zeal for tax cuts in general, I find unacceptable any tax cut that does not get passed to consumers at the pump and that could jeopardize the safety of drivers on state roads and bridges… As co-chairman of the committee that fights to protect consumers, I do not believe the proposal would ease the burden of exorbitant gas prices,” said Senator Doyle, who chairs the General Law Committee.

According to news reports, Mr. Doyle promised – tardily, as it happens – “to work with the Department of Consumer Protection and other consumer advocates to explore ways to ensure gasoline wholesalers adhere to Connecticut law and do not pass the cost of the gross receipt tax onto consumers.”

The issue was decided 30 years ago in Mobil Oil Corp versus Dubno. The state of Connecticut sought to prevent oil companies from passing along to consumers the gross receipts tax it imposed on oil. The Supreme Court, rendering a declaratory judgment, found unconstitutional the prohibitive portion of the Connecticut statute -- section 13(b) of Connecticut Public Act 80-71 – because “…it is pre-empted by federal law and thus violates the Supremacy Clause [of the U.S. Constitution].”

Mr. Suzio points out that Mr. Doyle, the co-chairman of the Law Committee, likely does not have “power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.”

Mr. Suzio’s tax cut, no less than the tax cut for which Mr. Obama is agitating, will make it easier for the Middle Class to survive the crushing tax increases imposed upon them by Mr. Malloy, the architect of the largest tax increase in Connecticut’s history, even at the risk of disappointing tax prone Democrats such as Mr. Doyle.

Malloy Re-inventing Taxes

In the new state reinvented by Governor Dannel Malloy and his Malloyalists, sin taxes are in. And if the state is unable to reap enough taxes from current sins – boozing, gambling and driving cars to work rather than biking to the job -- Connecticut will, with the help of the federal government, create new vistas of sin and tax them to the hilt.

The tax on tobacco products in Connecticut, already the highest in the Republic, was increased in Mr. Malloy’s first budget 27.5 to 50 percent on products such as cigars and pipe tobacco. Snuff tobacco suffered a tax increase from $0.55 to $1 an ounce. Former Attorney General Richard Blumenthal rose to prominence in the state by beating the tobacco industry with a big litigation stick; recently Senator Blumenthal sought to end cigar smoking as at sporting events.

Taxes on gas in Connecticut, an energy product frown upon by the environmental industry, is the highest in the nation, largely because the state realizes a revenue bonanza on gas from two different taxes: the gas tax at 25 cents a gallon, and the gross receipt tax at another 25 cents a gallon. Republican State Senator Len Suzio is contemplating a bill that would cap the gross receipt tax at $3. But a bill adjusting downward a tax in Connecticut is a rare legislative animal, and any such measure is likely to be smothered in its crib by Democratic legislators whose platforms for reelection generally contain smoldering verbiage plighting their troth to middle class nutmeggers taxed by Mr. Malloy.

Like the mafia of old, Connecticut does not tax gambling directly; it simply demands a piece of the action. Former Governor Lowell Weicker is responsible for the contract between Connecticut and its two Indian casinos that regularly dumps a percentage of slot machine business into state coffers. Tax money realized by the state from its two Indian Casinos runs about $33 million per year, and the coming state tax on internet gambling, now referred to by the poofy euphemism “gaming,” promises to swell state coffers even more.

Thanks mostly to an interpretation of a law by a functionary in President Barrack Obama’s Justice Department, the states and the federal government will reap many more tax dollars from a new industry created by legal re-invention – internet gambling. The promise of additional tax revenue flowing from the new internet gambling industry has had a soporific effect on politicians in the state who used to inveigh against gambling, among them former Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who went to Washington promising his constituents that he would fight for them as senator with the same passion he brought to the attorney general’s office. The senator is no longer keen on preventing internet gambling.

Shortly after he had been swept into office with a miniscule plurality of votes -- only 6,404 among 1.2 million cast during his joust with Republican candidate for governor Tom Foley, a jobs producer savagely portrayed in pro-Democratic ads as a corporate raider -- Mr. Malloy and the Malloyalites surrounding him plotted a massive tax hike, the largest in Connecticut history, not excepting former Governor Lowell Weicker’s tax raid on Connecticut citizens in 1991 following the former governor’s successful effort in adding an income tax to Connecticut’s revenue producing engines.

An adept politician, Mr. Malloy discovered a way to boil the lobster -- very slowly over a low flame -- to prevent it jumping the pot.

Mr. Malloy mollified arch progressives on the left such as Speaker of the House Chris Donovan, now running for the U.S. Congress in the 5th District, by readjusting tax brackets and rates, increasing tax brackets from three to six and boosting the top marginal income tax rate to 6.7%. A provision was added into Mr. Malloy’s budget that allowed residents who do not pay income taxes to collect from Connecticut’s treasury an Earned Income Tax Credit amounting to 30% of their Federal Earned Income Tax Credit.

In order to increase revenue substantially enough to produce fiscal surpluses, Mr. Malloy broadened the tax base, increased Sales and Use Taxes, Admissions Taxes, Corporation Business Taxes, Excise Taxes and Miscellaneous Taxes. Then he went to work reducing the offsets. The income tax credit for property taxes paid to Connecticut municipalities was reduced from $500 to $300. Mr. Malloy recently formed a commission to study other tax credits offered to businesses in Connecticut with a view to reducing them, thus adding even more revenue to state coffers.

As business production dipped both in Connecticut and the nation at large, Mr. Malloy added to the sagging shoulders of Connecticut corporations a business surtax of 20% that is to apply, provided the tax self-lapses, for income years 2012 to 2014.

Mr. Malloy boosted tax rates as shown below, according to a “Summary of Tax Provisions Contained in 2011 Conn. Pub. Acts 6,” that appears on Commissioner of Revenue Services Kevin Sullivan’s site:

“The general sales and use tax rate increases from 6% to 6.35%;

“The room occupancy tax increases from 12% to 15%;

“The tax on the rental or leasing of a passenger motor vehicle for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less increases from 6% to 9.35%;

“A tax rate of 7% applies to the following: the sale for more than $50,000 of most motor vehicles, the sale for more than $100,000 of a vessel, the sale for more than $5,000 of jewelry (whether real or imitation), the sale for more than $1,000 of an article of clothing or footwear intended to be worn on or about the human body, a handbag, luggage, umbrella, wallet or watch."

Mr. Malloy then taxed services that had not been taxed before he was elected:

“Services rendered in the voluntary evaluation, prevention, treatment, containment or removal of hazardous waste or other contaminants of air, water or soil;

“Valet parking provided at any airport;

“Yoga instruction provided at a yoga studio;

“Motor vehicle storage services;

“Packing and crating services;

“Motor vehicle towing and road services;

“Intrastate transportation services provided by livery services, with certain exceptions, including nonemergency medical transportation provided under the Medicaid program, certain paratransit services and dial-a-ride services;

“Pet grooming, pet boarding services, and pet obedience services;

“Services in connection with a cosmetic medical procedure;

“Manicure services, pedicure services and all other nail services; and
“Spa services.”

He imposed new admission taxes never before collected on:

“The Hartford Civic Center;

“The New Haven Coliseum;

“New Britain Beehive Stadium;

“New Britain Stadium;

“New Britain Veterans Memorial Stadium;

“Bridgeport Harbor Yard Stadium;

“Stafford Motor Speedway;

“Lime Rock Park;

“Thompson Speedway;

“Waterford Speedbowl;

“Facilities owned or managed by the Tennis Foundation of Connecticut or any successor organization;
“William A. O’Neill Convocation Center;

“Connecticut Exposition Center;

“Nature’s Art;

“Connecticut Convention Center;

“Dodd Stadium;

“Arena at Harbor Yard;

“Games of the New Britain Rock Cats, New Haven Ravens or the Waterbury Spirit."

Never one to overlook an opportunity to tax sin, Mr. Malloy increased excise taxes:

“Cigarette Tax - Rate increase: The cigarette tax rate will increase from $3.00 to $3.40 per pack on July 1, 2011.

“Tobacco Products Tax - Rate increases: Effective July 1, 2011, the tax on all tobacco products (other than tobacco snuff products) will increase from 27.5 percent to 50 percent of the wholesale sales price of such products. In the case of cigars, the tax will be 50 percent of the wholesale sales price, not to exceed 50 cents per cigar.

“Effective July 1, 2011, the tax on tobacco snuff products will increase from $0.55 per ounce to $1.00 per ounce of snuff.

“Effective July 1, 2011, the tax on cigars will be 50 percent of the wholesale sales price, not to exceed 50 cents per cigar.

“Alcoholic Beverage Tax - Rate increases: Effective July 1, 2011, the various alcoholic beverages tax rates will increase by 20%."

The seventh day not having yet arrived, Mr. Malloy was not quite finished re-inventing Connecticut. He had neglected to tap a rich vein of Miscellaneous Taxes. Perhaps his economic guru Ben Barnes rousted him from slumber with a tap on the shoulder.

“Hey boss, you forget something.

“Oh Yeah.”

“Real Estate Conveyance Tax - Rate increases: For deeds, instruments or writings that are currently subject to the state real estate conveyance tax at a rate of 0.5%, the rate is increased to 0.75% effective July 1, 2011.

“For deeds, instruments or writings that are currently subject to the state real estate conveyance tax at a rate of 1.0%, the rate is increased to 1.25% effective July 1, 2011.

“Estate Tax: For estates of decedents dying on or after January 1, 2011, an estate is subject to the Connecticut estate tax if the amount of the Connecticut taxable estate exceeds $2 million.

“Gift Tax: For Connecticut taxable gifts made by a donor during a calendar year commencing on or after January 1, 2011, including the aggregate amount of Connecticut taxable gifts made by the donor during all calendar years commencing on or after January 1, 2005, the Connecticut gift tax will be imposed if the amount of Connecticut taxable gifts exceeds $2 million (with a credit allowed against such tax for Connecticut gift tax previously paid for Connecticut taxable gifts made on or after January 1, 2005, but prior to January 1, 2011).


“New Electric Generation Tax: Effective for calendar quarters commencing July 1, 2011, there is a new electric generation tax that is imposed on every entity that is providing electric generation services and uploading electricity generated at a facility in Connecticut to the regional bulk power grid. The tax is equal to $0.0025 multiplied by the net kilowatt hours of electricity that are generated and uploaded. The tax does not apply to electricity generated and uploaded exclusively through the use of fuel cells, solar, wind, water, or biomass. Note: This tax is scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2013.

“New Hospitals Tax: Effective for calendar quarters commencing July 1, 2011, there is a new tax imposed on a hospital’s “net patient revenue.”

“New Residential Day User Fee – ICF-MR: Effective for calendar quarters commencing July 1, 2011, there is a new “residential day user fee” on each intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded in this state.


“Nursing Home User Fee: Effective for calendar quarters commencing on or after October 1, 2011, the fee is based on the sum of each nursing home’s anticipated nursing home net revenue multiplied by a percentage set by the Department of Social Services, which percentage will not exceed the maximum allowed under federal law.”

When Mr. Malloy had finished re-inventing Connecticut’s taxes, only sticks, stones and grasshoppers remained unaccosted by the tax collector. The revenue lemon, which represented approximately one half of Mr. Malloy’s “shared sacrifice,” had been squeezed dry.

The new internet gambling tax is very much like the tobacco and alcohol tax in several respects. Smoking, drinking and gambling are discreditable activities. Both Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Malloy, one supposes, avoid all three. There are no photo opportunities showing the governor or the senator poised at a one armed bandit – so called for a good reason – encouraging a client of Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun to dump their savings into shot machines.

And yet…

Revenue from sin taxes can be turned to good use. The gambler who drops fifty bucks at Foxwoods contributes his mite to teacher pensions, busway projects and Mr. Malloy’s other re-invention activities.

While governors and senators hate the sin, they love the taxpaying sinner. Internet gambling creates a whole new industry for tax plucking purposes. Obstacles will be removed, objections will not be sustained.