“I can't tell you that I'm gonna cut taxes because I don't know where those cuts will come from.”

AI Generated Image

Hartford’s Democrat supermajority keeps spending your money on priorities that do not serve Connecticut families: expanded benefits without qualification checks, poorly overseen grant programs that leave millions unaccounted for, and endless lawsuits against the federal government that risk even more funding cuts. Meanwhile, documented Medicaid fraud has already cost tens of millions, and simple steps to comply with federal eligibility and work rules are resisted in favor of more spending and more litigation.

Republicans are offering a different path: stop the waste, tighten controls against fraud, protect the federal dollars that hospitals and schools actually need, and return savings to taxpayers instead of expanding the bureaucracy. That is how Connecticut gets lower costs, fewer scandals, and real tax relief; without waiting for the next surplus to disappear into off-budget accounts.

At the October 14 League of Women Voters debate, Jill Oberlander was clear. When asked about tax relief, she said “I can't tell you that I'm gonna cut taxes because I don't know where those cuts will come from.” That answer demonstrates a refusal to do the basic work of responsible stewardship.

Savings Opportunities Abound

Connecticut has spent at least $80 million since 2023 on healthcare coverage for unqualified recipients, yet the programs have produced no documented proof of measurable benefit to the state’s taxpayers or public health outcomes. In-state tuition and related aid for unqualified students impose an estimated $23.5 million annual cost — the highest per-taxpayer burden of such policies in the country — again without documented evidence that the spending improves educational results or economic returns for Connecticut. DEI staffing at public colleges costs roughly $4.2 million a year with no demonstrated impact on student performance or institutional quality. Multi-million-dollar allocations continue to Planned Parenthood and to renewable-energy subsidy programs that similarly lack clear, documented proof of net public benefit relative to their cost.

Legislative grant programs have shown the same lack of discipline. Audits of funding routed through entities such as the Blue Hills Civic Association found millions distributed with little documentation, unsupported personal expenditures, and large sums left unaccounted for among subrecipients. A public defender’s office audit flagged more than $22,000 spent on a meeting heavy on recreation (pony rides, pickleball, and family activities) and light on work-related content.

Fraud compounds the problem. Connecticut’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit reported at least $43.4 million in fraudulent payments from fiscal years 2021 to 2025, with hundreds of cases opened and dozens of arrests. The Department of Social Services has identified additional tens of millions in overpayments through audits. These are recoverable dollars that never reach legitimate services or taxpayers.

Attorney General William Tong has filed or joined more than 40 lawsuits against the Trump administration on funding freezes, tariffs, environmental rules, homelessness conditions, and education grants. At the same time, the Justice Department has sued Connecticut over the Trust Act and related policies that limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and a separate federal suit challenges the state’s in-state tuition benefits for undocumented students as conflicting with federal law. Litigation consumes resources and increases the risk of further funding cuts rather than preventing them.

Federal rules under the 2025 budget law already point to straightforward compliance steps: use existing wage and benefit data for verification of Medicaid and SNAP work or community-engagement requirements, document exemptions accurately, honor federal detainers for criminal offenders consistent with federal statutes, and end preferential treatment that federal law does not support. These are administrative and statutory choices. They protect federal funds for eligible residents and free state dollars.

Oberlander presents herself as the independent, experienced, fiscally responsible choice who will protect taxpayers and lower the cost of living. Yet she cannot identify even one of these documented areas of waste, fraud, or non-compliance as a source of savings. In a legislature controlled by a Democratic supermajority, that is not independence. It is an indication that the same priorities that produced the current spending will continue. Every Democrat running in Greenwich and Stamford share those same priorities. We deserve better.

Voters have a clear choice. Every member of the Republican ticket is dedicated to cutting the waste, recovering the fraud, protecting funding, and cutting taxes.