|
Big Government: In Connecticut, It’s the Law October 1, 2009 Burning all the public-policy studies that document Connecticut’s affinity for Big Government would probably keep the 3.5 million denizens of the Nutmeg State toasty this winter. Add another to the pile. The Goldwater Institute, an Arizona-based think tank, has released the first-of-its kind attempt to “broadly identify those states most likely and least likely to furnish strong constitutional protection of the principles of limited government.” How does Connecticut score? Not great. Author Nicholas C. Dranias, a former lawyer for the Kelo-fighting Institute for Justice, directs the Institute’s legal shop. “50 Bright Stars: An Assessment of Each State’s Constitutional Commitment to Limited Government” discovered a wide divergence among the laboratories of democracy when it comes to their founding documents’ propensity to “secure liberty and fiscal responsibility.” The analysis established 10 benchmarks to gauge states’ constitutions, including free speech, property rights, substantive due process, equal protection, and contract enforcement. Some of the metrics are embraced by the loopiest ACLU cardholder. But Dranias added three categories few leftists find compelling: subsidy restrictions, fiscal restraints, and taxpayer standing. Each state received either a zero, one, or two score for its performance in each benchmark. Zeroes were assigned for “equivalency to analogous provisions of the U.S. Constitution,” while ones and twos were earned for achievement “above the federal baseline.” Enough about methodology. Here are the results. Six states were tied at the top with scores of 16, while 24 earned 15s or 14s. Only four states dipped into the single digits: Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, and -- you guessed in -- Connecticut. With a score of 7, The Land of Steady Growing Government tied with the notoriously moonbatish Green Mountain State. Connecticut was particularly weak on contract clauses, structural government restrictions (i.e., checks and balances), and subsidy restrictions. (In the taxpayer-standing measurement, all received a zero save Michigan, the only state that permits taxpayers to bring suit to enforce revenue limits and requirements for voter approval of tax hikes.) When freedom-lovers finally win control of the Connecticut General Assembly -- hopefully, there will be at least a few thousand people left in the state when that happens -- “50 Bright Lights” will be a useful roadmap for reform. Many states’ provisions are worth adding to Connecticut’s constitution. For example, Nevada holds that the state “shall not donate or loan money, or its credit, subscribe to or be, interested in the Stock of any company, association, or corporation, except corporations formed for educational or charitable purposes.” Alabama’s constitution renders the state unable to “be interested in any private or corporate enterprise, or lend money or its credit to any individual, association, or corporation.” Just imagine the millions (billions?) that might have been saved from failed corporate-welfare schemes if similar language existed in Connecticut! Another measure worthy of consideration is voter approval of bonds, a pro-taxpayer clause badly needed in a state where pork-fueled indebtedness is rampant. Others include a cap on state revenue that restricts growth to inflation plus population expansion, a provision that confines bills and resolutions to one subject, and a property-tax ceiling. Dranias has compiled an impressive listing of restraints on government at the state level. But he also documents the human element, through analysis of whether current interpretations of state constitutions provide better protections “than does federal constitutional jurisprudence.” By examining case law, Dranias determined whether pro-liberty precedent “exists, remains open to development, or has been effectively foreclosed by settled precedent.” The results made some high-scoring states plummet (“many of the best constitutions on paper did not yield a correspondingly strong jurisprudential commitment to principles of limited government”) and others improve. Surprisingly, Connecticut boosted its score from rock bottom to 43rd. A further refinement, based on the “competence, impartiality, and dominant philosophy” of states’ judges, produced a final, if somewhat suspect, ranking of 37th. “50 Bright Lights” highlights the role the judiciary plays in preserving, or undermining, limited government. As a grassroots grassfire against destructive public policies spreads, activists in Connecticut and elsewhere should remember to allot resources to the battle for constitutionally guaranteed rights at the state level. D. Dowd Muska is a writer, commentator and lecturer. His website is www.dowdmuska.com. # # # # #
|
