Connecticut Democrats' evasive campaigns are an insult to voters.

Let's put this bluntly: the 2018 elections are as close as we will ever get to a referendum on Democratic economic policy in Connecticut.

Voters are right to want answers.  In spite of a economic and job boom across the country, Connecticut's "death spiral" is accelerating.  Taxes keep going up, jobs are disappearing, and property values are in the tank.  Connecticut's budget deficit in 2020 will be $1.9 billion; in 2021, it will be about $2.5 billion.  Those are just pick-up notes to more staggering problems, as more taxpayers move out of the state and the death spiral accelerates.

Connecticut's mess is Democrats' to explain: they have controlled the state budget process for 38 of the last 40 years.  Governor Malloy, now hovering around 20% approval, has held office for the last eight (and he made certain his stench would linger for a long time).  Further, among Connecticut's all-Democrat delegation in Washington, those defending seats have held office an aggregate total of 72 years, including both the U.S. House and this year's contested U.S. Senate race.

If Democrat incumbents want to convince voters they can now fix Connecticut's unprecedented crisis, they ought to at least explain what they've been doing all these years.  But Democrats are mostly avoiding their own records and, in large part, the voters.

The single most ruinous expense for Connecticut is public-sector union pensions.  As a candidate, Ned Lamont has scripted an arms-length gap between himself and Governor Malloy.  But, setting aside the talking points, Lamont sounds a lot like Malloy when it comes to spending on unions.  That is, he promises nothing and talks only vaguely about any fix or "reform."  (As others have pointed out, Lamont is careful to avoid the term "concession" since it would alienate the union masters, whose enthusiastic support he needs on Election Day.)

If this sounds familiar to Connecticut voters, it should.  It is Malloy II.  

Nailing down Lamont's "plan" to rein in union spending is like nailing Jell-O to a tree.  Whatever Lamont's recently professed beliefs about unions and beleaguered Connecticut taxpayers, his loyalty plainly lies with the former. 

That's a big problem for taxpayers, because when Lamont strays from his campaign script, he talks about tax increases, tolls, and new taxes as much as Bubba Gump talks about shrimp recipes.

Then again, the governor's seat is open, so at least Lamont must participate in debates with the Republican candidate, Bob Stefanowski.

The same cannot be said about Connecticut's all-Democrat delegation in Washington.  These Democrats' approach to the 2018 elections in Connecticut is one befitting a king, not elected members of U.S. Congress.  Here are some statistics Democrats won't talk about:

– The four Democrat incumbents in Congress in contested races (3 House, 1 Senate) are so confident about their 64-year track record in Washington that they have agreed to a total of four debates.

– Rep. Jim Himes (CT-4) is a poster boy for the Democrats' cynical approach.  When Himes was a challenger in 2008, he famously demanded ten debates and, according to the New York Times, got seven.  Now, after ten years in office, Himes has agreed to just three debates in a district that includes an exceptionally diverse range of 17 communities between Bridgeport and Greenwich and about 40% percent non-affiliated voters.

– Voters interested in Matthew Corey, the Navy veteran and business-owner running a spirited campaign for U.S. Senate against Chris Murphy, will get just one opportunity to see Corey debate Murphy.

– Voters interested in the Senate race fare better than voters in districts occupied by Rep. John Larson (CT-1), a 20-year incumbent, and Rosa DeLauro (CT-2; 28 years).  Neither has agreed to a single debate.

The spirit and purpose of local debates are for politicians – incumbents and multi-term incumbents in particular – to explain and defend their ideas to grassroots voters.  Without this opportunity to hear from incumbents and challengers, individual voters place a distant second to special interests and big-money donors.

In other words, debates are the best way to put individual voters ahead of special interests.

Democrats in Connecticut also seem to need a reminder that voters and the interests they represent are dynamic and diverse.  Their districts have seen thousands of new constituents and newly registered voters in recent years (with 18- to 25-year-olds in the lead).  Statewide, unaffiliated non-affiliated voters outnumber both Republicans and Democrats both in totals and in new registrations.  Don't voters and taxpayers deserve debates?

Democrats' message is clear: they want to avoid us.  They are attending to special interests and big money donors, they are enjoying the spoils of incumbency, and it's safer to avoid the voters.  

This is a disgrace.

Democrats' approach puts Connecticut Democrats in league with the incumbent New York governor, Andrew Cuomo.  Even the New York Post asked last week why Cuomo has not agreed to a single debate.

The Post asked the right question: "What does Andrew Cuomo fear?"  The same question should be directed to Connecticut Democrats.

Bill Lalor is chair of the Wilton (Connecticut) Republican Town Committee.