TO THE EDITOR:
Laurence Cohen’s column [March 15] astutely distills the liquor issue down to a simple conclusion: “It’s none of the government’s business whether grocers sell wine.”
Self-righteous legislators seem oblivious to the revolution of 1776. You know the one where Adam Smith demonstrated in The Wealth of Nations that the market works best when left alone. More of our representatives should have taken Economics 101 at UConn.
Whether wine is sold in grocery stores is not really a revenue issue, nor an underage drinking issue, nor about protection of small liquor shops or community morals — which is where the discussion usually heads. It is about the role of government, its obligations and its limitations.
No one expects the legislature to debate when gas stations are open, or whether whole wheat bread can be sold by Target, or what price should be charged for a quart of milk. Why then do we tolerate its regulating those same issues for wine? Does it really need to dictate minimum pricing, or can individual store owners sort that out on their own?
This state has some serious fiscal issues. The economy is weak, corporations are moving to more favorable environments, and even healthy firms [UTC] weary of state regulation and high labor costs. These areas beg for attention. A government which does not support its businesses will find fewer businesses staying around to support it.
A one-time industrial powerhouse, Connecticut struggles for relevance in a changing world. Meanwhile, the legislature debates whose shelves should be stocking wine, and when we are allowed to buy it.
Ted Pritchard Middle Haddam
Legislators Making Life Tougher For Business
TO THE EDITOR:
As the owner of a small company that manufactures specialized aircraft service tools and employs 38 full-time employees, I am frustrated that some state legislators are again trying to make it harder for me to keep and create good jobs and stay in business. As if the economy isn’t bad enough, we have to worry about the House and Senate leaders introducing legislation that will make it more costly and tougher to do business in Connecticut. We export our products worldwide and compete with businesses in every country in the world.
All legislators have been saying jobs are their top priority, but again this year the Labor Committee approved a mandatory paid time off policy that will increase my costs and force me to make some very tough decisions.
If Senate Bills 172 and 63 pass, I will have to offset the costs of the bill somewhere else — by cutting back our employee benefits, suspending our hiring plans, reducing work schedules, or possibly laying off workers.
We do everything we can to take care of our employees and accommodate their needs and our needs as a business. How many more businesses will have to close or move out of Connecticut before we realize that many, if not most, employers and employees are already working effectively together for their mutual benefit, and mandates like this will only jeopardize that balance?
Small business owners can’t spend our time at the State Capitol everyday, so we put our trust in our lawmakers and hope they will make the smart choices and reject laws that will increase costs or taxes. Small businesses are the backbone of the Connecticut economy, and many like me are optimistic about the future but tentative about making major investments because of bills like mandated paid time off and other proposals that are harmful to business.
It’s time for the state legislature to become much more serious about jobs and economic growth. We’ve been doing our part and want to stay and do more; when will they do their part?
Francis P. Kelly, President Kell-Strom Tool Company Inc. Wethersfield
