It didn’t take long for the liberal Democrats to start issuing the “let’s not get emotional” responses to the triple homicide in Cheshire and what it means to the public safety of out citizens. We have the reporters at the Journal Inquirer to thank for getting many Democrats on record with a collection of flabby mealy mouthed drivel about not being emotional in the wake of the rape, torture, robbery, arson and murder of three women last week in a home invasion that was thoroughly planned by two career, emphasis - career criminals.

This has become the common response of the left when their actions in the Legislature have created a system that merely shuffles through criminals through a system that has no firm definition, other than not to have crowded prisons. Something is wrong with this system. This is not an aberration. While the suburban quiet of Cheshire was broken last week by two career thugs, gang violence is in full swing in the streets of the North End in Hartford, a result of many of these bangers getting out and now, getting even.

State Rep. John “Jack” Thompson, D-Manchester, who has been getting by as the “conscious” of the Legislature for years, adopted a there is an exception to every rule and leap to the non-issue of a three-strikes provision as an option that would have stopped Steven Hayes, 44, and Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, from their evils acts. No one has suggested the three strikes option. How about just doing your time for one strike there, Jacko?

“I’m always optimistic that you can help somebody recover,” Thompson said. “And some people take a lot longer.”

Hmmm. Maybe if Thompson’s wife was strangled and house set on fire, he might put down his copy of The Nation and wake up.

Fellow Manchester Representative Ryan Barry, a career legislator and defense attorney, also took the high road.

“The answer is much more involved and contemplates a revisit of how we allocate resources to the Judicial Department to address the cases that come in the courtroom doors,” Barry said. “There are a lot of problems with our system and a lot of it has to do with money.”

Barry, a lawyer who does some criminal-defense work, noted, “This is a very complicated issues that I don’t think should be addressed with mandatory life sentences for chronic offenders.”

Yes, Ryan, it’s always about money. Money for more education programs, job training, post parolee counseling and of course, more money for lawyers. Figure Ryan, Jack and State Sen. Mary Ann Handley, D-Manchester to support raising taxes next year on “the rich” to pay for more intervention programs run by by non-profit agencies which employ only union workers who support Thompson, Handley and Barry’s reelection campaigns.

State Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee made a good suggestion to increase the penalty for burglary, which now is considered a nonviolent crime. It should be categorized as violent, he contended, and repeat offenders should face harsher penalties afforded to persistent violent felons.

According to the JI, “During the course of a burglary, he argued, there is a great chance residents are in the house and, therefore, the crime has the potential to become violent. Kissel said a burglary also violates a person’s sense of security, which he said he considers a “violent threat.”

Gov. Rell has rightly called for a top to bottom review of the entire parole system. Someone dropped the ball or didn’t even see it falling. Gov. Rell will act quickly t get that in order. But Republicans must now reassert our values on law and order and demand justice - a death penalty that respects appeals but is implemented when appropriate. We must stop the liberal march to apologize for evil and do something about it.

In order to build the new Republican majority in Connecticut, we must have candidates ready to wage effective, positive campaign to distribute the GOP message.

Over 100 candidates, representing more than 50 towns, made their way to Glastonbury for the first CTGOP Candidate School of 2007. Connecticut Republicans gathered to learn "tricks of the trade" from some of Connecticut's best Republican political talent.

Connecticut Republicans are working hard this summer to build up our Party - by training our candidates, developing our eCampaign, recruiting new volunteers, and soliciting contributions. CTGOP is rising this summer.

Who says Connecticut doesn’t matter when it comes to Presidential politics?

After erstwhile Gubernatorial candidate and New Haven Mayor John DeStefano’s Identification Card Program for illegal immigrants passed the New Haven Board of Aldermen - without the support of Republican Alderman Arlene DePino - the city received significant statewide and national media attention for the program. Mayor DeStefano got his mug (or at least his voice) on television a number of times.

With the ID card program going into effect, the issue has bubbled up to the Presidential level. Today at a Town Hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa, former Gov. Mitt Romney took a question (in Spanish no less) from a gentleman asking about the program. Romney passed on commenting on the specific New Haven program and instead gave a broad answer about “sanctuary cities” before pivoting to illegal immigration as a big issue.

As the New Haven plan goes into action, look for more Presidential candidates to be asked about the program and its potential implications for the U.S.

In a comedic twist of fates, Senator Obama’s blog picked up Heath’s post, Hillsborough Balloon Fest, showing how The Everyday Republican is continually extending its influence:

Even our colleagues on the other side of the political aisle took notice of our dominance. The Everyday Republican wryly noted:

The Democrats were another story - strong showings were made most impressively by the Obama effort, complete with marching band, with probably 75 people or better - it looked like the Obama people had preemptively attacked a 16 year old summer camp.

See that? Obama thinks we’re wry.

Our friends at CR Nation enjoyed last Sunday’s post, All Jokes Aside.

They have their own response to the video here.

Many thanks to CR Nation!

Glenn Hubbard, Mitt Romney’s economic adviser, talks taxes in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Who bears the corporate tax burden? Some may be tempted with a quick answer, “corporations.” But that is clearly wrong. The Econ 101 admonition that people pay taxes — in this case, suppliers of capital through lower returns, workers through lower wages, and/or consumers through higher prices — remains true even when the tax is aimed at capital. And the category “owners of corporate capital” (that is, stockholders) is also too narrow. In his celebrated analysis of the corporate tax almost 50 years ago, Arnold Harberger showed, for a closed economy, that a separate tax on corporate capital would reduce returns to all owners of capital, making it a tax on saving (and, in a framework more general than Mr. Harberger’s, on investment)…

...In other research assuming that the world-wide capital stock is fixed, William Randolph of the Congressional Budget Office finds that labor bears about 70% of the corporate tax. More generally, the burden on labor is higher to the extent that saving is responsive to after-tax returns and the country has a small effect on world prices of goods.

Taxing corporate profits decreases the incentive to buy stocks. Once corporations pay higher taxes, they have less money to give to their stockholders. This drop in profitability dissuades stockholders from buying more stocks. Why buy a pricey stock if you’ll lose a third of every dollar you make from it?

When people buy fewer stocks, corporations have less money for expansion. Corporations build fewer factories and hire fewer workers than they would have if taxes weren’t as high. Workers lose the opportunity to learn skills or earn experience they need to get higher paying jobs.

And who wants to raise corporate taxes?