We physicians also recognized that at any given time, we didn’t know everything about everything.  We were constantly learning by depending on scientific advances and research.    We never tried to hold ourselves out as perfect. We were “practicing” medicine – doing the best we could with what we knew.

We didn’t understand COVID when it first appeared in 2020, entirely because we hadn’t seen this completely novel infection before. Millions died while science tried to figure it out, but eventually, science got it right.  A vaccine was discovered in record time and because of that scientific discovery, the pandemic faded away.  Nor did we understand AIDS when it first surfaced in 1981. It took years of scientific research to find effective drugs, but eventually we got that right also. Same with tuberculosis until 1952 when treatment with streptomycin was discovered to be effective.  Same with smallpox – eradicated from the entire globe because of a vaccine, and the same with Ebola and the same with measles, and on and on.  Vaccines were discovered and the conditions faded away. Wonderful job by science, in my opinion.

So, what is it with polio these days?  Despite overwhelming data to the contrary, the US is being overtaken by a conspiracy theory based on a single, very faulty British study from the Lancet associating the polio vaccine with autism. There is a call by the potential future head of the Department Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to ban the polio vaccine from usage on children in schools – not based on science or its remarkably successful proven track record, but by Mr. Kennedy’s opinion as an attorney with a very limited science background.  If his recommendations are followed, with president – elect Trump giving him power with wide latitude, polio will resurface.  Countless Americans could die or experience paralysis, just like in the olden days before the vaccine.

We who trained for years and understand medical research and the imperfections of some medical studies are the experts when it comes to health care evaluations.  We don’t know everything, and we don’t always get everything right, but we know more about healthcare and treatments than politicians or attorneys or insurance companies, or noisy internet conspiracy theorists.   And the overall track records of physicians in America is still pretty good.  Americans need to smarten up and listen to their experts – sooner rather than later.  Betting against science and against the experts and following fools is a loser’s pathway.  Someday, all of our lives might depend on making that right decision.

Dr. Michael B. Teiger is from West Hartford.

I share your fears about what’s to come.

Yet I remain hopeful about the future of America. Here’s why.

Trump hoodwinked average working Americans into believing he’s on their side and convinced enough voters that Kamala Harris and Democrats were on the side of cultural elites (the “deep state,” “woke”ism, “coastal elites,” and so on).

But Trump’s hoax will not work for long, given the oligarchy’s conspicuous takeover of America under Trump II.

CT attorney general releases message as nation awaits Trump inauguration. ‘I will never surrender’

Even before Trump’s regime begins, it’s already exposing a reality that has been hidden from most Americans for decades: the oligarchy’s obscene wealth and its use of that wealth to gain power over America.

Seated prominently where Trump is giving his inaugural address today will be the three richest people in America — Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg — each of whom owns powerful media that have either boosted Trump’s lies or refrained from telling the truth about him.

Musk sank a quarter of a billion dollars into getting Trump elected, in return for which Trump has authorized him, along with billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, to target for elimination programs Americans depend on — thereby making way for another giant tax cut for the wealthy.

The oligarchy’s conflicts of interest will be just as conspicuous.usk’s SpaceX is a major federal contractor through its rocket launches and its internet service, Starlink. Bezos’ Amazon is a major federal contractor through its cloud computing business. Zuckerberg is pouring billions into artificial intelligence, as is Musk, in hopes of huge federal contracts.

Ramaswamy, whose biotech company is valued at nearly $600 million, wants the Food and Drug Administration to speed up drug approvals. His investment firm has an oil and gas fund. His new Bitcoin business would benefit if the federal government kept its hands off crypto.

Trump himself has already begun to cash in on his second presidency even more blatantly than he did the first time. He just began selling a cryptocurrency token featuring an image of himself — even though cryptocurrency is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, to which Trump has already said he’ll name a crypto advocate as chair.

Trump returns to a changed Washington, this time with a full embrace from Republicans

Not to mention the billionaires Trump is putting in charge of key departments to decide on taxes and expenditures, tariffs and trade, even what young Americans learn — all of whom have brazen conflicts of interest.

They’ll all be on display today with Trump. Then, many will take their private jets to Davos, Switzerland, for the annual confab of the world’s most powerful CEOs and billionaires.

Watch live: Donald Trump’s inauguration

Not since the Gilded Age of the late 19th century has such vast wealth turned itself into such conspicuous displays of political power. Unapologetically, unashamedly, defiantly.

This flagrancy makes me hopeful. Why? Because Americans don’t abide aristocracy. We were founded in revolt against unaccountable power and wealth. We will not tolerate this barefaced takeover.

The backlash will be stunning.

I cannot tell you precisely how or when it will occur, but it will start in our communities when we protect the most vulnerable from the cruelties of the Trump regime, ensure that hardworking families aren’t torn apart, protect transgender and LGBTQ+ people, and help guard the safety of Trump’s political enemies.

We will see the backlash in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election, when Americans elect true leaders who care about working people and the common good.

And just as we did at the end of the first Gilded Age of the late 19th century when the oligarchy revealed its hubris and grandiosity, Americans will demand fundamental reforms: getting big money out of politics, taxing huge wealth, busting up or regulating giant corporations, making huge social media platforms accountable to the public rather than to a handful of multibillionaires.

Friends, we could not remain on the path we were on. The sludge had been thickening even under Democratic administrations. Systematic flaws have remained unaddressed. Inequalities have continued to widen. Corruption and bribery have worsened.

It’s tragic that America had to come to this point. A few years of another Trump regime, even worse than the first, will be hard on many people.

But as the oligarchy is conspicuously exposed, Americans will see as clearly as we did at the end of the first Gilded Age that we have no option but to take back power.

Only then can we continue the essential work of America: the pursuit of equality and prosperity for the many, not the few. The preservation and strengthening of a government of, by, and for the people.

(Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of “The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It.” Read more from Robert Reich at https://robertreich.substack.com/) (C)2025 Robert Reich. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Why is the river in danger? At the mouth of the river in Windsor, the Rainbow Dam blocks fish migration and produces algae blooms, harmful to people, pets, and wildlife. Although the dam was installed in 1925, it was never successfully updated to allow for the passage of fish. The dam yields environmental problems affecting residents in watershed towns in Connecticut, both down and upstream.

Stanley Black & Decker, the owner of the dam and the Farmington River Power Co., must change their usage of the Farmington River or transfer ownership so it can be successfully renovated or removed altogether. On top of the complications of the dam, the river faces increasingly drastic flooding and droughts. The river’s endangerment is a clear message that climate change isn’t a distant issue that we are unaffected by in Connecticut. The dam’s impacts only worsen the changes to river health we are already seeing.

I enjoy the beautiful river and all it has to offer recreation wise. So does my dog. And so do my neighbors and their children. Recently, swimming at summer camps in the area was interrupted by the toxic algae blooms. River herring, shad, eel, and sea lamprey are among some of the marine life the river is inaccessible to. If watersports or fishing aren’t your thing, the river is a crucial source of drinking water for about 400,000 people.

In order to protect the river, residents can advocate to hold Stanley Black & Decker accountable for effective replacement or removal of the dam. Communicating concerns with the leaders of Connecticut’s Department of Energy & Environmental Protection can help put pressure on Stanley.

A healthy future for our waterways is an investment worth making. It’s one that will only get more expensive as we allow time to pass. As community members, consumers, and enjoyers of the river, we have a responsibility to support environmental action and sustainable renewable energy production that doesn’t come at the expense of river fish populations and the safety of people around the river. Stanley leaders have an immense responsibility to uphold environmental justice for our communities.

Climate change is no small stream. But embracing and protecting our natural environment can lead to a current of change thanks to local and collective efforts.

Julia Gordon is a student at the University of Vermont.

Let’s try to restart the conversation around some fundamental principles. First, Connecticut has had, has, and will have for the foreseeable future, among the highest electric costs in the United States. There are a lot of reasons for this but suffice it to say here that it is not the fault of regulators, past or current, nor the fault of utility companies.

Second, while acknowledging the first principle, customers are entitled to the lowest possible rates consistent with efficient and adequate service.

Third, investment dollars flow to where those dollars can earn the highest risk adjusted return. That is, the greater the risk, the greater the required return to attract those dollars.

Fourth, predictability and stability, long and short term. are essential for both investors and  customers.

Fifth and finally, transparency should guide almost every decision regarding utility rates and  investment. By this, I mean real transparency. If, for example, there is a determination, after full and open discussion, that it makes sense for Connecticut to ensure that the Millstone nuclear plant be kept open, then the costs, benefits, and risks of doing so should  be fully explained to the public and if necessary, repeatedly so. Similarly, the current transition to a smart grid and new energy sources will be neither quick nor cheap but is inevitable. Full discussion and disclosure are paramount.

Because applying these principles can be complicated and hard, that application is not aided by dueling newspaper interviews, sound bites, lawsuits and the rest of the rhetoric which Connecticut has been subjected to over the last several years.

While a bit of a cliché, a little less heat and more light would be welcomed.

David Silverstone of West Hartford served as Connecticut’s first consumer counsel and over the last 50 years has represented consumers, power generators, and utility companies. He currently serves as the consumer advocate at the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative. These views are his own.

The former and near-future Oval Office occupant has mused about buying Greenland, making Canada the 51st state, reclaiming the Panama Canal and renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. All these things have (or are) major hotties in the geopolitical real estate sense to the career developer, and the former Miss Universe pageant owner is talking like he’s long been eyeing up their wares. And now he wants to grab them by the assets.

Trump isn’t even back in the White House quite yet, but already his public musings are reshaping the global political landscape. Leftists can only dream of actually changing the world on the same scale with their comparatively lame and contrived performance art provocations.

So-called progressives have produced chef d’oeuvres like the green “butt plug” sculpture called “Tree” that imposed itself on Paris’ city center about a decade ago.

There was also Russian “artist” Petr Pavlensky’s attempted arson of the Russian security service headquarters in Moscow, resulting in a fine, or the spectacle of him nailing his own scrotum to Red Square, before ultimately moving to Paris, where he was sentenced to prison for setting fire to the Bank of France in yet another presentation.

Way to change the world, guys.

Trump, on the other hand, has managed to single-handedly achieve results, with just a few provocative words, that have long been the dream of populists around the world seeking to reclaim power from globalists running our Western nations. To find a time when Canada’s political class didn’t behave as though the country were already the 51st state, one must look back to 2003, when then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to follow President George W. Bush into the ill-fated invasion of Iraq.

“I called him Governor Trudeau,” Trump said recently of Canada’s prime minister, “Because they should be the 51st state, really. It would make a great state.”

Canada has tagged along on every recent U.S.-led foreign intervention, chimed in to echo every Washington talking point, and has failed to chart any diplomatic or economic course independent of the U.S., making the country vulnerable to U.S. whims and limiting its bargaining position. It’s only now that Trump has openly mused about Canada effectively just being seen as an American vassal that the entire Canadian establishment is suddenly standing up to the idea for the first time in ages.

“There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States,” Trudeau wrote on social media.

“I have the strength and the smarts to stand up for this country and my message to incoming President Trump is that first and foremost, Canada will never be the 51st state of the U.S.,” said poll-leading Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre on CTV News.

At what point did either of these guys realize that Canada’s interests weren’t just a copy-pasted version of America’s? Apparently, it took Trump to spell it out like a drunken guy in a bar instead of deploying the smooth talking that they’re used to from Washington.

Next thing you know, Canada will be asking for a defense pact with its Arctic neighbor, Russia, in light of the threats. Frankly, geopolitical “dating around” should have already long been the case on the trade front, at the very least. It’s only because of a lack of political courage vis-a-vis the U.S. that it isn’t. Other U.S. allies have enjoyed an official policy of non-alignment and deal with everyone and anyone — like India, much of Africa, and Asia. And even America’s southern neighbor, Mexico.

About Denmark and the European Union’s overseas territory, resource-rich Greenland, Trump has said that he wants to buy it – using economic or military force if necessary. For “national security” purposes, of course. Which is like a guy saying that he’s attracted to you for your intellect. His son, Donald Trump Jr., even showed up in Greenland with some political activist pals in tow. Nothing wins over hearts and minds like a dude musing about how much he’s into you while his people show up at your front door.

While Greenland is currently eyeing independence from Denmark, they say that it doesn’t mean that they want to jump into another serious relationship. And they’re certainly not into being treated like some kind of a prostitute.

European leaders initially sat quietly in the corner, watching Trump attempting to make cuckolds of them and musing about having his way with Greenland, before finally reacting.

“No country is the backyard of another, no country should have to fear its bigger neighbors. That is a central part of what we call Western values,” said German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose country is literally the backyard of the US, and littered with dozens of bases.

Biden overtly threatened Germany’s economic lifeline of cheap Russian gas through its Nord Stream pipeline, before it was mysteriously just blown up altogether, making Germany and Europe overdependent on pricey shipped American liquified natural gas. But apparently the European establishment didn’t see the problem until Trump put the transatlantic relationship in less flattering terms.

“There is obviously no question that the European Union would let other nations of the world attack its sovereign borders, whoever they are,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told France Inter radio. Whoops, too late. Just look at Europe’s inflation and energy crisis driving voters to populism. “But have we entered into a period of time when it is survival of the fittest? Then my answer is yes,” he added.

Europe has long been working against any Darwinist instincts, spending the past several years trying to wedge its head inside the mouth of the lion while their own people yell at them to stop. Thanks to Trump’s world-class theatrics, we might all end up finally having a chance to take our countries back.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and host of independently produced talk shows in French and English. Her website can be found at http://www.rachelmarsden.com.) (C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Speaking at a Mass in Chicago in 1985, Coretta Scott King proposed a year of action against hunger. For food is the most basic of the human rights that Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for in his heroic life.

As the Chicago Tribune reported Mrs. King said the year leading up to the new holiday honoring her husband “must be the fulfillment of the basic needs of the poor.”

Mrs. King said “In every major city in this country, there are people without food. Something is wrong that we have to feed so many. Why should there be poverty with all of our science and technology? There is no deficit in human resources, it is a deficit in human will.”

At the time Mrs. King proposed the year-long campaign against hunger there was a massive famine taking place in Ethiopia. People were starving to death in the African nation, a cruel injustice that we could not ignore.

“People don`t ever have to starve to death, there are solutions. We have failed if we can`t eradicate hunger in Africa and Ethiopia” said Mrs. King.

Americans responded to the cries of hunger in Ethiopia. The Washington Post reported that an interfaith service honoring Dr. King would give its offering to famine relief in Ethiopia.

A great way to honor Dr. King this year would also be a campaign against hunger. Any individual, school or organization could do this and dedicate itself to helping the poor and hungry everywhere.

At home food banks are facing high demand and need the support of the public to keep supplies up. Overseas famine is taking hold in Sudan, Gaza and other war-torn areas.

We need to put up a strong fight against hunger this year. It’s critical to our country domestically and in foreign policy.

Following Coretta Scott King’s plan of a year long campaign against hunger would be especially appropriate this year and encourage activism.

Part of that campaign against hunger could be a series of food drives collecting donations for your local food bank. We have done this in my neighborhood in Ohio very successfully since the pandemic, helping the nearby church provide food to the needy. Our nation’s food banks are also at the frontline of disaster response.  The Los Angeles Regional Foodbank needs donations to help victims of the tragic wildfires in California.

Another good way to help is to be like Dr. King and write letters. You could write to your representatives in Congress asking them to support the fight against hunger at home and overseas. Congress decides the budget for food aid, so it’s important that you raise your voice in support of the poor and hungry.

Educating others about hunger is another important part of any campaign. It’s very rare that hunger gets media coverage so most people are uninformed about this social injustice.

Hunger is escalating worldwide because of wars and climate change. As the UN World Food Program says “343 million people across 74 countries are acutely food insecure, a 10 percent increase from last year and just shy of the record hit during the pandemic.”

If wars continue or another drought hits, that number will likely worsen. We need activism against hunger.

This Martin Luther King Jr. Day you too could kick off a year long campaign against hunger leading up to next year’s holiday. That would be an inspiring way to honor Martin Luther King Jr. and be a champion for human rights.

William Lambers is an author who partnered with the UN World Food Program on the book Ending World Hunger. His writings have been published by the Washington Post, NY Times, Newsweek, History News Network and many other news outlets. See www.williamlambers.com

Reentry services are critical. They reduce recidivism by providing employment opportunities, housing support, and resources to address drug dependency. These services improve the quality of life for individuals, their families, and entire neighborhoods. Yet, they also offer a less-discussed benefit: significant cost savings for the state and local municipalities.

Consider the facts. According to the 2024 State of Reentry Report prepared by Career Resources, the CT Reentry Collaborative, and The Charter Oak Group, nationally, an estimated 67% of people incarcerated will be rearrested within three years of prison release. In Connecticut, however, our prison population declined in recent years (from 19,894 in February 2008 to 10,058 in June 2023) “due in part to an expansion of mental health and substance use treatment options and other programs that diverted people from the criminal justice system.”

And while it costs approximately $249 per day—or nearly $91,000 annually—to incarcerate a single individual in Connecticut, alternative programs for individuals under community supervision or court mandate, such as those offered by CPA operate at a fraction of the cost.

In FY 2024, 2,332 individuals received assistance in the community that included case management, evidence-based interventions, referrals to substance abuse and mental health counseling, housing, employment, and job training. These services were provided through our Alternative in the Community programs in Hartford, Manchester, and Waterbury, along with our Community Service Program at Hartford Community Court, and Early Screening and Intervention Units (Hartford, New Britain and Waterbury). The programmatic costs break down to $1,811 per person.

The savings are undeniable.

For every person we help avoid reincarceration, the state saves tens of thousands of dollars annually. The cost of reentry services pales in comparison to the expense of incarceration, not to mention the broader societal costs of unemployment, homelessness, and untreated substance use and mental health. By investing in people, CPA’s work reduces these burdens, promoting healthier communities and more sustainable economies.

However, our ability to continue this transformative work is at risk. With the impending loss of American Rescue Plan Act funding, CPA faces a fiscal cliff starting July 1. This jeopardizes the future of our Reentry Welcome Centers in Hartford and Waterbury, critical hubs that have supported thousands of returning citizens and their families. If these centers must scale back services, the ripple effects will be profound: higher rates of recidivism and homelessness, fewer employment opportunities, and increased strain on social services and public safety.

The consequences of inaction are stark. Families will suffer as their loved ones struggle to find stability after incarceration. Communities will bear the brunt of increased crime and poverty. And the state will face rising costs as more individuals cycle through the justice system. This is not just a fiscal issue; it’s one of humanity.

As we navigate this critical moment, we call on the state and local leaders, as well as private partners, to step forward and support our mission.

In recent years, Connecticut has shuttered three prisons. A Feb. 21, 2024, investigative piece in the CT Mirror, “CT reentry centers ask: Where is the money from prison closures?” pointed out that redirecting even a portion of the $26.5 million saved annually through recent prison closures could bolster reentry services and amplify their impact.

Investment in reentry services is an investment in people, in communities, and in the future of Connecticut. It’s a testament to the belief that when one person succeeds, we all benefit.

Our shared humanity demands that we do more than stand by. We must act. The work of Community Partners in Action and our Reentry Welcome Centers is too vital to falter, and the stakes are too high to ignore. Together, we can continue to make a difference—for individuals, for families, and for the betterment of us all.

Beth Hines is executive director of Community Partners in Action.

This last election showed that many Americans are now deserting the Democratic party in America. The reason for many leaving the Democrats is the poor leadership qualities of many Democratic politicians and the very bad messaging in the last election. The Democrats had tremendous legislative successes during the Biden presidency but were poorly communicated.

CT Congressional delegation introduces bills to block Trump agenda

We sometimes forget that it takes true humility in a leader to know when a leader is not the person going forward in the future, and it is time to relinquish his leadership role to another person. In this last election, Joe Biden should have known that it was his time to quit. The problem was not that Kamala Harris would have done any better, even with more time, because she lost in the worst defeat in recent history, losing both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Kamala Harris ran a terrible campaign thinking that the likes of Oprah, Cardi B, Beyonce, sports stars, and Barack Obama would be an automatic ticket to the White House. These entertainers, sports athletes, and our ex-president did more to make Kamala Harris lose than help her because they galvanized the other group of voters, and they came out to the polls.

Barack Obama did not deliver a convincing message on why black men should vote for Kamala Harris, and the entertainers Oprah, Cardi B, Beyonce, and many other entertainers were not good role models but only wanted to project their own brand in the media by campaigning and many voters seen through their foolish act. The Black Community must now demand committed, moral, intellectual, and spiritual leaders like in the past and stop relying on these deceitful entertainers and athletes who just want to be on social media, or the Democratic Party will be in very big trouble in future elections.

Melvin Douglas Wilson, Manchester

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been talking about doing just that since they were appointed by Donald Trump shortly after the election to lead the Department of Government Efficiency.

At an event, Ramaswamy suggested that eliminating federal jobs would, in fact, be “good for many of the individuals who make a transition from government service back to the private sector.”

And Musk has mused that “a weekly email of accomplishments seems like it should be mandatory for all government employees,” presumably to be part of a larger effort to identify and then eliminate what he has called “fake jobs” within the bureaucracy.

It is clear that Ramaswamy, who does not depend on a weekly paycheck to survive, treats the idea of firing workers and in the process depriving them of their livelihood as a big joke. Speaking at Mar-a-Lago recently, Ramaswamy quipped, “Elon Musk and I are in a position to start the mass deportations of millions of unelected federal bureaucrats out of the D.C. bureaucracy.” He went on to say, “I don’t know if you’ve got to know Elon yet, but he doesn’t bring a chisel, he brings a chainsaw, and we’re going to be taking it to that bureaucracy,” before adding, “It’s going to be a lot of fun.”

It is apparent that Ramaswamy does not associate the elimination of a person’s job with that person actually losing their job. “Most federal employees, like most human beings, are fundamentally good people and deserve to be treated with respect, but the real problem is the bureaucracy,” he has said.

“Our opponent is not any particular individual,” he explained. “Our opponent is the bureaucracy.”

Perhaps this is how he can remain so unbothered by the idea of taking away peoples’ livelihoods: he is not really firing people. All he’s doing is taking on the bureaucracy, that great big abstraction that Americans have been trained to believe is bloated, unnecessary, malevolent and not made up of actual people.

But by taking on the bureaucracy, Ramaswamy and Musk are in fact demonstrating disdain for the dignity of working people. The idea that federal bureaucrats should spend time each week writing summaries of their accomplishments at work suggests that Musk does not believe that they are doing all that much to earn their salaries.

And Musk’s past claims that those who continue to work remotely are only “pretending” to work suggests that he does not place much value on the work that they are doing. For somebody so closely associated with Silicon Valley, this aversion to the idea that technology might be used to help people work remotely is baffling.

Such disdain for people who work for a living makes Musk and Ramaswamy seem like cartoonish versions of a boss one might find in a Dickens story, like the miserable Ebenezer Scrooge who seemed eager to torment his clerk, Bob Cratchit. As well, their belief that they are uniquely positioned to determine which workers are performing useful tasks and thus worth retaining and which ones are superfluous and thus worthy of termination, make them appear like caricatures of the robber barons during the Gilded Age, an era when wealthy industrialists would justify their ruthless business practices and their avarice with the help of the emerging theory of Social Darwinism.

As the historian Richard Hofstadter has written, American ideas of efficiency, individualism, and liberty during this period were rooted in a capitalist system that rewarded those who could demonstrate their fitness. Within this system, survival itself became evidence of one’s fitness, which in turn would be measured in the form of financial reward. In the process, wealth itself becomes the primary evidence of one’s fitness.

As Hofstadter would write, when describing the ideas of William Graham Sumner, the clergyman, sociologist, and perhaps America’s most well-known promoter of Social Darwinism, “If the fittest are to be allowed to survive, if the benefits of efficient management are to be available to society, the captains of industry must be paid for their unique organizing talent. Their huge fortunes are the legitimate wages of superintendence; in the struggle for existence, money is the token of success. It measures the amount of efficient management that has come into the world and the waste that has been eliminated.”

Or as Sumner himself would put it, “The millionaires are a product of natural selection, acting on the whole body of men to pick out those who can meet the requirement of certain work to be done…It is because they are thus selected that wealth—both their own and that entrusted to them—aggregates under their hands…They may fairly be regarded as the naturally selected agents of society for certain work. They get high wages and live in luxury, but the bargain is a good one for society. There is the intensest [sic] competition for their place and occupation. This assures us that all who are competent for this function will be employed in it, so that the cost of it will be reduced to the lower terms…”

During the last presidential campaign, there was much talk by Trump and much of the rest of the Republican Party about taking on the elites and standing up for the workers who had been left behind. It turns out that support for working people does not extend to those people who work within federal bureaucracy. Trump has asked Musk and Ramaswamy to determine which workers are worthy of retention and which should be fired. The idea that two billionaires should be able to determine on their own the value of a person’s job and then proceed to fire that person in order to reduce the size of that abstraction called the bureaucracy is unnerving.

It is also probably not what a lot of people who voted for Trump had in mind. Even if it was what they had in mind, what Musk and Ramaswamy are doing are denigrating working Americans, and in the process normalizing the idea that anyone who does not work in the private sector for a mercurial billionaire is not contributing much of value to their communities and should be terminated.

Jeffery Vacante is an assistant professor in the Department of History at the University of Western Ontario, where he teaches American history.

Connecticut remains one of the top three most expensive states in the nation for electricity consumers, a class that includes us all. Decades of promises to do something about the cost of power have provided only more misery for ratepayers. It did not have to be this way.

CT budget expected to hit $27B. What lawmakers say as we face among highest cost of living in nation

Lamont has made the state so inhospitable to innovation and broken so many promises that his credibility as an informed leader at a critical time is gone. As one example, Lamont says we need more natural gas. We have needed more natural gas for years. Our own American aristocrat did not think so a few years ago when he killed the Killingly gas plant that would have provided power to more than 420,000 homes.

Four years ago this month, when Connecticut’s demand for new sources of electricity was well-known, Lamont announced he was against the Killingly plant. The decision pleased those who do not see natural gas as a bridge to a sustainable energy future. Lamont has been especially susceptible to environmental purists in his party, particularly as election years draw near.

Lamont, who possesses significant skills as a conciliator in this fractious time, has presided over deep divisions in energy policy and seems not to care. He continues to ignore a law that he signed requiring him to appoint two additional members to the state’s utility regulator, Public Utilities Regulator Authority or PURA. The law says he shall appoint five members. It is well-settled law in Connecticut that shall means shall. Still, Lamont refuses. This will have implications for Lamont when he has to make the case that the incoming Trump administration is disregarding the plain meaning of federal laws.

PURA itself is a mess. Lamont could burnish his woeful “Right to Know” credentials beyond owning the original Norman Rockwell painting of that title by performing a simple act. He could make sure that all PURA commissioners have direct and unfettered access to the agency’s files. He could also insist that votes of PURA commissioners are properly held and recorded.

There is an obvious solution to our insufficient supply of natural gas: convince New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to permit the expansion of natural gas pipelines that run through New York into New England. The two Democrats must have frequent contact to discuss and address regional issues. Make the pipeline a priority.

The governor also needs to repair relations with Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey. His dealings with her have not, regrettably, been honorable. Lamont has backed out of renewable energy projects that our neighbors expected Connecticut to participate in after the governor said we would.  They learned they cannot count on Lamont. That will be difficult to repair.

It is wrong to mislead the public into thinking that there are vast amounts of hydropower from Canada that can be sold to Connecticut consumers at a low cost. Building the lines to transport electricity from Canada to New England has been a long, expensive and controversial process. If recent history is any indication of future obstacles, there will be no relief for Connecticut from Canada.

It gets worse. The most beautiful word in Donald Trump’s limited vocabulary, according to him, is “tariffs.” He has threatened to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian exports to the United States because he loathes our democratic allies. That will add significantly to the cost of the electricity we purchase from our peaceful northern neighbor.

Lamont’s fellow Democrats in the legislature add to the gloomy outlook. The co-chairs of the energy committee, Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, and Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, published a bizarre opinion piece, that we presume they wrote together, excoriating The Courant’s reporting and accusing international business rating agency Standard & Poor’s Rating Service of being the tool of utilities Eversource and United Illuminating. This is conspiracy mongering stuff.

S&P downgraded its ratings of two Eversource subsidiaries, Connecticut Light and Power and Yankee Gas Services. No corporate executive likes to share that sort of news with shareholders because it means the cost of doing business may rise. It is not news that Connecticut is a challenging place to do business. Even Lamont disclosed that several years ago when his entrepreneurial wife went to Tennessee to begin a new enterprise.

Lashing out at the media for your own failures is an old and frequent gambit of politicians mired in failure. Connecticut’s energy market is a mess and events such as extreme weather could suddenly make it far worse.

Weaving fantasies, keeping fingers crossed, and blaming the press will not keep the heat, air-conditioning, and lights on in the crunch. We want reliable energy at a reasonable price. It’s not a lot to ask.

Kevin F. Rennie can be reached at kfrennie@yahoo.com