*This article was originally published by Philanthropy Daily

While Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas (2026) warns of the dehumanizing risks posed by artificial intelligence, at its heart the encyclical calls for renewed human engagement and collaboration to “build a civilization of love.”

His plea could not come at a more urgent time. For decades, civic associations—once the bedrock of local communities—have steadily disappeared due to declining memberships. As these institutions wane, Americans have become increasingly siloed, with technological advances such as social media and AI further deepening loneliness and isolation.

As a result, a widening void has diminished civic life—and, indeed, charitable attitudes toward others. Drawing on the biblical image of reconstructing Jerusalem’s walls, Pope Leo argues civil society’s restoration is crucial to safeguarding human dignity. Indeed, every person has a role, as he writes:

“All are given their own section of the wall: scientists and researchers, entrepreneurs and workers, educators and legislators, civil society, popular movements and faith communities. This is the logic of subsidiarity, which values the cooperation between generations, peoples, disciplines and cultures as the best way for fostering stability, prosperity and peace.”

Strengthening the fabric of local societies, however, is not for the faint of heart—but will require intentionality and perseverance. As Pope Leo explains, a “civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization.”

Unfortunately, Americans are increasingly disconnected from the very communities Pope Leo urges them to rebuild. A Pew Research Center study found approaching two-thirds (62%) are disengaged from local communities—favoring instead online activity like social media posting. But even the most engaged members are “most likely to have negative feelings about the state of the country,” Pew states.

More troubling still, there may be fewer Americans willing to “pick up the mantle” in the not-too-distant future. While older generations remain active within their local communities, younger generations tend to be spectators, those who “follow the news and interact with it online but are less engaged in other aspects of public life.” Concurrently, young Americans see civic engagement primarily through a political lens, expressed through protests, rallies, and advocacy.

The question, then, becomes: How do we inspire Americans—particularly younger generations—to be tangibly involved in their local communities? To not only protest, but to volunteer at a soup kitchen, mentor a struggling child, visit the lonely, or serve in a parish ministry?

It is easy to make a sign, march, and gather for a cause at the local town green. It is far harder to spend an evening with society’s troublesome and vulnerable, those whom Christ calls us to love patiently. But the latter, Pope Leo suggests, is a “fundamental dimension of our humanity” reflecting a civilization’s heart and “ability to recognize the other as a face not merely as a function.”

If current trends hold, civil society may worsen—which itself presents an existential crisis for the American republic. For 250 years, the nation has depended on civic and volunteer associations, which have enabled citizens to meet the needs of their fellow neighbors without excessive government dependence and interference. A stronger civil society, then, preserves self-government and liberty, as well as organic and authentic collaboration.

More importantly, it fosters “friendship and universal fraternity,” as Pope Leo states, and a genuine love of neighbor and community. However, most Americans seldom know their neighbors, if at all, making that biblical question—“And who is my neighbor?”—harder to answer.

The online experience hardly promotes “love thy neighbor.” It is easier to cast stones behind a screen than encountering another person face-to-face.

Yet people need human connection. Young people, especially, hunger for deep friendships and ties outside of the digital realm—and for good reason. As Pope Leo emphasizes, pursuing the common good “gives life to a people” because “people learn to recognize that they themselves are interconnected and jointly responsible for the res publica.”

This is not a utopian—or even communistic—endeavor. His encyclical reiterates the Church’s view on these dehumanizing pursuits and ideologies. Nor does he recommend jettisoning technology and AI altogether. Instead, Pope Leo argues technology must remain properly ordered toward the human person rather than replacing authentic human relationships. As he writes, technology can accomplish tremendous good with the “power to heal, connect, educate and protect our common home.”

For civil associations confronting declining memberships, the dawn of AI may present an unexpected opportunity for engagement. Used prudently, these tools can help organizations communicate more effectively, recruit volunteers, and connect with a generation searching for community. To despair, however, dooms groups to an early demise.

At the same time, we must remain vigilant, resisting the temptation to offload our thinking to machines while preserving the ingenuity and creativity that makes us uniquely human. And we must recognize humanity’s capacity not only for great evil, but for its great ability to love. In truth, a simple gesture and act can change and revitalize someone’s soul. Through civil associations, neighbors are able to be the hands, feet, ears, eyes, voice and heart of Jesus Christ. As St. Teresa of Ávila famously wrote, “Christ has no body now on earth but yours.”

Pope Leo’s encyclical echoes this same call, saying, “In the humble fidelity of daily life, even the era of AI can become a time in which the Holy Spirit brings about the civilization of love in our lives.” Like the walls of Jerusalem, communities can be rebuilt over time in parish halls, ballfields, food pantries, schools and so on—places where people can once again “know thy neighbor.”

Artificial intelligence will transform our economy and daily lives, but what will never change is the truth: every person is beloved by God; human hearts need community; and the primary vocation in all of our lives is to love.

For America to endure and truly love again, civil society cannot retreat. It must lead. After all, historically, these groups have been the avenue by which citizens cultivated compassion and collaboration.

It is imperative, then, for us to meet the moment: reach out, invite, mentor, and form the next generation. Utilize technology, but never replace real person-to-person encounters or degrade others’ human dignity. We must act with a Christ-like lens by “becom[ing] ‘weavers of hope’ in our world,” as Pope Leo teaches, “sharing who we are and what we have, so that the presence of Jesus may grow among us and his Kingdom take shape.”

*This article was originally published by RealClearReligion

A few weeks ago, a friend of my fiancée and me passed away. He was only 33 years old.

Out of respect for his family, I’ll keep his name private. But I pray — and firmly hope — that his name is written in the Book of Life spoken of in Revelation.

He was an affable, joyful man. With childlike curiosity, he immediately welcomed me into a young adult Catholic group. Together, we would discuss movies, sports — particularly baseball and basketball — and naturally faith. He often invited me to Sunday night basketball (of which I now regret not attending). And he even sacrificed a Saturday morning to help my fiancée move out of her apartment.

She knew him for more than 10 years. I only knew him for a few months. Yet I could quickly see that his compassion revealed a dimension of Christ’s heart — one that listened attentively and saw every person as beloved by God. Like St. Teresa of Calcutta, he had the rare gift of making you feel as though you were the only person in the room. It’s a heart I only hope to reflect to others.

He surely had crosses and struggles. He was not perfect. None of us are. But he entrusted those burdens to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Indeed, he was a Eucharistic man — regularly attending adoration. One of the last times I saw him, he quietly prayed for a holy hour, and then exited the church. Sadly, he died only a few weeks later after complications due to a sports-related injury.

In his own way, he quietly gave himself — embodying the Prayer of St. Francis’s line: “It is in giving that we receive.” This was evidenced by the reminiscing offered by several friends after a memorial Mass. They talked about his sympathetic and kind-hearted witness, his sense of humor, and joyful demeanor even in the midst of his own suffering.

His impact was noticeably deep — not because of grand accomplishments or gestures, but because he consistently chose to love generously in ordinary ways in his corner of the world.

Indeed, his life was a quiet witness.

Too often, we can be overwhelmed by injustices, pains, or politics on a national and global scale. Too often, as young adults, we can be consumed by professional or vocational pursuits, or crushed by economic and other anxieties. Too often, we can ask God’s will in our lives and feel abandoned. We can feel isolated and alone.

The problems can seem insurmountable. But we are called by Christ to “go out.” Our true vocation is, at its core, to love. Not all of us are called to steer world events or be a Doctor of the Church — but we can bring Christ’s light to someone in our community, neighborhood or even home. Our fiats, through the Holy Spirit, can draw others to God and radically alter a person’s life. As Saint Thérèse of Lisieux once said: “Miss no single opportunity of making some small sacrifice, here by a smile, there by a kindly word; always doing the smallest right and doing it all for love.”

We all have the capacity to be quiet saints like my friend. To introduce and point others to Christ’s infinite love and mercy. To entrust our destinies and wills to God. And to be the living embodiment of the Gospel’s profound message: that Jesus is risen and he infinitely loves us all.

Death does not have the final word. As Catholics, we must allow that truth to take root in our hearts in order for Christ to truly transform and conform us into his own image and likeness. My friend demonstrated this faith — and hope — in adoration, his genuine treatment of others, daily acts of love, and childlike trust in God.

We, too, can live our faith simply: letting go of pride; persevering in struggles; sacrificing for others with our time and attention. Those traits can truly make all the difference in our own lives, and in the lives of others — even those we hardly know or don’t know at all.

I entrust his soul to God, whom he loved so much. Confidently, I hope my friend’s work is just beginning — that he is one of the many quiet saints of heaven, praying for all of us to cross heaven’s threshold and hear those words: “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

May we all strive to live joyfully, knowing we’re being held in God’s loving hands; and that we, too, are made for sainthood.

*This article was originally published by the Washington Examiner

If a house divided against itself cannot stand, then a house unloved cannot long endure. But do Americans love their country anymore?

Despite the 250th celebration, which should’ve reignited our collective patriotism and coalesced our melting pot, that essential question is harder to discern as evidenced by a recent Gallup survey finding American pride at a record low.

Undoubtedly, President Donald Trump and party affiliation influenced respondents’ answers. Nevertheless, the widening ideological chasm has been a decades-long trend; and compounded by generational economic and technological anxieties and lack of civic education (or basic literacy), the republic has been exposed to intensified political violence and a rise in communism and socialism, philosophies diametrically opposed to Americanism.

A malaise has befallen America. Even despair. Younger Americans are less patriotic “because of America’s past injustices,” writes Dace Potas at USA Today. Indeed, after years being inundated with critical theory, maligning the ‘miracle’ of the United States’ existence and origins, their disillusionment should not come as a surprise. In truth, the Zohran Mamdanis of the world did not fall from the sky, but were cultivated in a milieu of Anti-Americanism rife in academia and pop culture.

In short, we have forgotten how to love our country, which is necessary for its preservation and survival.

Patriotism, however, is not a vice to be wary against as progressives might claim; nor is it “merely sentimental or political attachment,” as Cardinal Raymond Burke teaches, but a “moral virtue, rooted in piety by which we render honor to God and to the earthly bonds, through which his providence has granted us life and formed our identity.”

To view fervent patriotism as a ‘slippery slope’ toward extreme nationalism akin to fascism is misguided. Indeed, patriotism is the manifestation of love and the motivation to love: to raise families, go to church, be civically engaged, volunteer and strive for a better tomorrow.

This love of nation often begins in the family, which is the bedrock of civilization and the “engine which gives our country life,” as President Ronald Reagan observed; but fewer Americans are getting married and having children.

America faces a demographic cliff. Pope St. John Paul II’s aphorism — “As the family goes, so goes the nation” — takes on a new urgency. How can the United States be patriotic — or learn to love — if the essential societal unit is absent? Who is teaching the next generation of leaders?

This phenomenon affects the nation at-large, including a robust and active civil society, who exemplify both love of country and love of neighbor.

Forming associations and charitable outreach has been a uniquely American trait since the republic’s founding. This is the nation once hailed by President George H.W. Bush for fostering the “thousand points of light.” Indeed, the United States has been one of the most charitable countries ever.

Americans desire community; but are, ironically, more siloed. Fewer civic associations and churches exist. The hubs for interconnectivity are severed or slipping away into oblivion.

But citizens need a transcendent third: a shared ideal to bind a people together. For past generations, that was God and hope in the country’s future. As President Reagan once emphasized, “If we believe in ourselves and in the God who loves and protects us, together we can build a society more humane, more compassionate, more rewarding than any ever known in the history of man.”

Fewer Americans, however, believe in God or are less hopeful for the future.

Something must change — lest we risk our own country’s ideals of liberty and self government.

Recently, Samuel Goldman, an associate professor of humanities at the University of Florida, argued America needs to revive its civil religion — or a “system of belief distinct from Christian orthodoxy and secular neutrality.”

While Goldman’s analysis has merit, civil religion requires religiosity’s private cultivation. People need unifying symbols, principles and shared civic duties. Yet these first must be nourished in the human heart. John Adams noticed this truth quite clearly: “Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private virtue, and public virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.”

Things unloved eventually fall apart. But it’s never too late to reverse course -- though it might take work.

To thrive, America needs religious people. It needs strong families. It needs children who are educated about the country’s history. It needs a reinvigorated civil society. It needs human bonds and shared views that everyone — Democrat, Republican, left, right — are all created and beloved by God.

We all live in the same country. We should want it to succeed. And patriotism must be the catalyst for a new golden age of America.

All we need to do is love our country again.

*This article was originally published by RealClearReligion.

America is exceptional — and must long endure well after the nation’s 250th.

That conviction deepened in early May when my father, brothers, brother-in-law, and I made a long-overdue pilgrimage to the Gettysburg battlefield. From Little Round Top to Devil’s Den to the Peach Orchard to the High Water Mark, visiting the sites where the Union and Confederacy clashed between July 1-3, 1863, contextualized what I only gathered in history books, paintings, and documentaries.

To walk peacefully across the ground where more than 165,000 men fought — and where some 51,000 were casualties — was surreal. The beautiful day’s quiet wind and bright sun my family and I enjoyed starkly contrasted with the battle’s fog of war, death, torn land, and deafening artillery bombardment.

The Union troops could not have known that their courage would preserve the nation generations of Americans would inherit — the one borne from the Declaration of Independence, whose anniversary was commemorated the following day. Historians rightly regard Gettysburg as the Civil War’s turning point. By the summer of 1863, Gen. Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy had won numerous victories and sown anguish in the North. With the Union’s triumph, however, the Confederacy never mounted a major invasion of Northern territory again.

But the Battle of Gettysburg is more than an American milestone; it is a crux in world history. With the Union victory in the Civil War, slavery was abolished. Future generations of Americans were saved from bondage. The united continent became — and remains — a refuge for millions fleeing persecution or seeking greater opportunity. The ramifications of preserving the Union extended well beyond the 19th century. In the 20th, the New World helped rescue and liberate the Old, defeating totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and, ultimately, prevailing in the Cold War against Soviet communism.

Without a united United States of America, the principle that “all men are created equal” and the cause for human liberty would have been profoundly diminished on the world stage.

Gettysburg, then, is more than rolling farmlands stained by sacrifice. Among the battleground’s rocks, hills, and tranquil farmland is where the American experiment — and freedom — survived from the jaws of dissolution and diminution.

Walking the hallowed grounds, this truth became self-evident. One cannot help but feel a deeper gratitude for the Founding Fathers who established the republic and the soldiers who preserved it over the past 250 years. They risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to create and preserve a new nation based on liberty and self-government.

America is singular in world history because it recognized the everlasting rights “endowed” by our transcendent Creator rather than the fickle, susceptible laws of man.

Yet nations rise and fall. History is littered with the ruins of once-great civilizations. America is not exempt from this death. Scripture warns believers the devil prowls “like a roaring lion looking for [someone] to devour.” Likewise, a free people must remain vigilant against cynicism or complacency lest they squander our forefathers’ sacrifices. As Abraham Lincoln’s clarion call asserted in the Gettysburg Address, citizens bear a responsibility so “that these dead shall not have died in vain.”

As the nation marks the 250th, however, that responsibility is more urgent. A record low number of citizens feel proud to be Americans; a majority believe the country’s “best days” are in the past; and most Americans suggest the country has moved away from its founding principles. Concurrently, ideologies diametrically opposed to the principles enshrined in the Declaration and U.S. Constitution are gaining traction. Antisemitism and anti-religious bigotry has sharply risen within the past few years. Political violence and polarization has intensified. Historical literacy, meanwhile, has drastically declined with fewer citizens lacking basic knowledge of American principles and the sacrifices that shaped the republic.

Coupled with sociological, cultural, educational, and economic unrest across ideological spectrums, America appears unmoored.

Despair, however, is the greatest sin because it abandons hope; but hope has always been one of America’s defining virtues.

Hope is woven into the Declaration’s affirmation that every individual has inherent dignity and the right to seek their life’s purpose free from government meddling. Hope crossed the Delaware with George Washington and stormed the beaches of Normandy. Hope inspired generations to build a stronger civil society through charity, innovation and exploration. And hope welcomed millions of immigrants who came to these shores seeking freedom and the chance to contribute to this grand democratic experiment.

This American project has not been perfect. No nation — or person — is. But hope is more than optimism. It is the conviction that our freedoms transcend political parties, nationalities, or the evolving cultural tides because they are rooted in God, Our Creator. It is confidence in his Providence, and choosing to love and defend those blessings freely given, even at the cost of our own lives. Indeed, in pursuing God, we pursue eternal happiness.

If we desire to preserve those freedoms, we must remember upon whom those freedoms depend. We must study our history, visiting the battlefields where Americans fought for the republic, and teaching future generations why those sacrifices mattered.

Most imperatively, we must hope again — so that our nation shall not die in vain. That the United States, “under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” as Lincoln declared eight score and three years ago.

Americans have withstood greater crises than today’s trials. We can again. The proof rests on the quiet hills and farmland at Gettysburg.

*This article was originally published in the Washington Examiner.

Deep within Scotland’s Edinburgh Castle, inside the ancient fortress’s prison vaults, is the oldest depiction of the “Stars and Stripes” outside the United States. The carving on a wooden door dates to the American Revolutionary War, when prisoners-of-war were either locked in ships or sent to prisons overseas by the Royal Navy.

The anonymous POW’s fate is uncertain, but more than likely, he sacrificed his life, fortune, and sacred honor, much like the thousands of Americans who succumbed to disease and malnutrition during the war.

At the time, the Stars and Stripes was still relatively new. On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress enacted the Flag Act, resolving, “That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.” It has appeared similarly ever since — aside from additional stars in the “new constellation.”

Yet, even in its infancy, the flag already elicited feelings of patriotism, independence, and hope. To the prisoner, locked in the Scottish prison, the Stars and Stripes he carved symbolized the pursuit of liberty and the birth of a new nation, which he may not have seen realized.

As America celebrates 250 years, the flag continues to embody the striving toward a more perfect union and the enduring truth that “all men are created equal,” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Throughout American history, the Stars and Stripes has been intrinsic in the nation’s defining moments. It flew over Fort McHenry when Francis Scott Key penned the national anthem. During World War II, U.S. soldiers raised the flag after the Battle of Iwo Jima. And it appeared alongside civil rights marchers seeking equal treatment and was planted by the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon in 1969.

Yet the flag’s significance extends beyond America’s borders as well. Countless immigrants and refugees have viewed it as a symbol of salvation and a beacon of liberty. New citizens receive an American flag when naturalized; and throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, oppressed peoples — most recently the Venezuelan and Iranian diaspora — wave it as a mark of liberation from authoritarian regimes.

Today, however, there are troubling trends demonstrating Americans’ national pride is waning, slipping to record lows. Concurrently, polarization has steadily increased within the past decade; and Gen Zers — the nation’s next leaders — have expressed record high favorability toward communism and socialism, ideals contrary to those enshrined at Independence Hall in 1776.

This decline in love of country has perniciously spread disillusionment with the foundational aspects of American civic life and ethos.

Despite these odds, Americans can largely agree on one thing: the Stars and Stripes evokes positive emotions; but the flag is only cloth. Symbols rest on a foundation — and when that foundation is crippled, and the shared principles are neglected, malnourished, or even disdained, the symbol then is rendered meaningless.

To the unknown prisoner in Edinburgh Castle, who risked his life for America’s independence, the flag was a profound emblem: the hope for a freer tomorrow. For generations of Americans and aspiring Americans alike, it has carried that same meaning. To neglect this history would do a disservice to the sacrifice of him and others who laid down their lives.

We have a duty to uphold and recommit ourselves to the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As President Ronald Reagan once warned, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Today, Americans must reinvigorate our national pride so that the Stars and Stripes can forever wave with purpose and power, inspiring future generations to preserve and defend liberty.

*This article was originally published by RealClearReligion

The 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding presents an opportunity for American Catholics to consecrate themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, particularly at a time when our society is marked by polarization, antipathy, and even a profound lack of love.

In a recent Fox News survey, more than two-thirds of voters described the country negatively, with a majority believing Americans are “separated by different values.” These findings, however, are not outliers, but symptomatic of decades-long trends; indeed, over the years, many Americans have expressed significant anxieties about U.S. democracy’s survival.

It is not hyperbolic, then, to suggest the stakes are existential. If a house divided cannot stand, then surely one unloved cannot long endure. To bind our nation’s wounds, to treat others without malice, as Abraham Lincoln stated in his Second Inaugural (1865), Americans must recommit to recognizing one another’s inherent dignity — that “all men are created equal,” as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed in 1776.

Doing so will require an act of the will: the choice to love. More fundamentally, however, Americans need to reexamine not what love is, but Who Love is — for the Creator who “endowed” us with our inalienable rights is also the source of the charity, mercy, and virtue necessary for freedom and self-government.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus offers the answer and the model to imitate. On June 11, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) will commemorate the 250th by consecrating the nation to His sacred heart following a novena — or nine days of prayer. Through this act, the USCCB is publicly entrusting the nation in Christ’s care.

For Catholics, devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus traces back to the revelations of a 17th-century French Visitation nun and mystic, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque. Since then, several countries — like Ecuador, Mexico, Spain, Argentina, Poland, among others — have consecrated themselves to the Sacred Heart. Last year, Pope Leo XIV — the first U.S.-born pontiff — emphasized the significance of reflecting on the Sacred Heart because He was “pierced for love, [and it] is the living and life-giving flesh that embraces each of us.”

The Sacred Heart of Jesus is more than a symbol of affection, but the means of our salvation and a love freely given “without exception,” as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches. It is what authentic love looks like.

While the United States is not a Christian nation in any formal sense, the nation’s moral framework has been intrinsically shaped by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our institutions, laws, customs, and understanding of human dignity reflect moral truths inherited from that tradition. As historian Tom Holland argues in Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, many of the values modern Western societies take for granted are rooted in Christianity itself. The Founders recognized the importance of religion and virtue in sustaining liberty, with John Adams famously observing, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Christianity, and therefore Christ, stands at the center of the United States of America’s history. More importantly, Christ sustains reality itself. As the universe’s Author, Christ has written — and continually writes — His law on the human heart. What theologians, philosophers, and the Founding Fathers described as natural law reflects a deeper truth: inalienable rights are not given by government, but God.

In short, Christ is freedom — and from His living Heart, our freedoms consistently flow. Yet history has proven that when societies forgo this reality, and even suppress religious expression, inalienable rights wither and perish. One only needs to reflect on the past century’s atheistic totalitarian regimes to see how this great divorce leads to the deaths of millions.

Likewise, Love cannot be properly defined if it is not rooted in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In recent decades, American culture has promoted the “love is love” mantra, defining love more so to mean carnal and/or sexual liberation. Yet minimizing love to merely reflect one’s sexual orientation and preferences fails to accurately capture Love’s true nature.

For St. Thomas Aquinas, love means willing the good of the other. Scripture defines that God is Love. And Christ Himself teaches, “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Love, therefore, is not necessarily liberty to pursue selfish exploits, the material, or even sexual pleasure — but sacrificial, merciful, just, and charitable. As St. Pope John Paul II succinctly observed: “Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”

True love — and true freedom — is what Christ displayed on the cross.

Today, America’s civic crisis is, at the core, a crisis of love. Polarization, loneliness, isolation, violence, and many of the social maladies that afflict our nation stem from hearts searching for fulfillment in places where it cannot ultimately be found. As St. Augustine famously wrote, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in You.”

The consecration of the United States to the Sacred Heart is therefore more than a public act of prayer. It is an invitation to national renewal, reminding us that true freedom and love — in its fullest expression — is found in Jesus Christ.

Devotion to the Sacred Heart is not only an acknowledgement of the highest good, but an opportunity to express gratitude to the One upon whom our liberties ultimately depend. Indeed, He freely gave us freedom due to His devotion to us. Moreover, by emulating Christ’s Heart, we become more capable of respecting others’ inherent dignity — seeing them as equal in God’s eyes and heart. In doing so, we can properly pursue the common good and rebuild civil society.

As America enters its 250th year, the Sacred Heart of Jesus offers an eternal reminder: a nation cannot remain free if it forgets the source of freedom, nor can it remain united if it forgets the source of love.

History turns on the Sacred Heart of Jesus; and the reinvigoration of the American spirit depends on it.

May the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!

*For the past few weeks, the Milford Board of Aldermen deliberated and voted on the 2026-27 budget. You can watch all the discussions on this playlist here.

The Budget Vote (May 7)

The Milford City Budget has passed with record-level spending and raiding of the ‘Rainy Day Fund,’ and increased taxes despite a lower mill rate.

I voted NO because I will never support a tax increase. You should keep, save, and spend what you’ve earned by your hard work. It doesn’t belong to the government. Especially at a time when families, businesses, and seniors are already struggling with rising costs, I could not support imposing a higher tax burden on Milford residents.

The Board of Aldermen (BOA) passed strictly along party lines: 9 Democrats voted in favor, while 6 Republicans voted against it.

At the outset of the budget process, Mayor Richard Smith — who campaigned on “lower taxes, stronger Milford” — pointed to several challenges, including contractual obligations with city employees and the effects of last fall’s property revaluation, during which average reassessed home values increased by roughly 40%.

Overall, the city budget surpassed $278 million, including approximately $118 million allocated to the Board of Education (BOE). That represents about a 5% increase over last year’s education budget.

Lowering the mill rate from 29.55 to 28.67 is not the same as delivering lower taxes, as Mayor Smith promised on the campaign trail. The increased costs did not appear out of thin air; they are the direct result of years of one-party rule in both Milford and Connecticut.

In Milford, Democrats have controlled the levers of power for nearly 15 years through the mayor’s office — aside from former Republican Mayor Anthony Giannattasio’s brief two-year term — as well as through various boards and commissions. Most notably, the Board of Education currently has no Republican representation. At one point, for four years, I was the lone Republican elected to that board.

These boards, commissions, and appointed officials negotiate and approve contracts. So who authorized these growing obligations? Primarily Democrats. And who has been one of the chief architects of electing Democrats in Milford for decades? Rich Smith.

In short, Mayor Smith is now dealing with the consequences of policies his own party helped create. It may be a difficult hand to inherit, but it is one fashioned largely by Democratic leadership over many years.

The budget process itself was also filled with irony.

Last year, when Mayor Giannattasio proposed using an additional $1 million from the city’s Appropriated Fund Balance — commonly known as the Rainy Day Fund — to keep the mill rate flat, Democratic aldermen expressed outrage, perhaps with some justification. Excessive withdrawals from the fund can negatively affect the city’s bond rating. Much like an individual credit score, a weaker bond rating can discourage investment and make it more difficult for a city to attract capital and foster economic growth.

However, it was also an election year. Mayor Smith, then a candidate, had already labeled Mayor Giannattasio “Taxin’ Tony” in campaign advertisements. In the end, Democrats approved only the initial $5 million request and still voted for a tax increase — no doubt creating useful campaign fodder in the process.

This year, however, Mayor Smith withdrew $12 million from the Rainy Day Fund in an attempt to offset tax increases — without a peep from his Democratic allies. The inconsistency reeks of political gamesmanship, and Milford residents are the ones paying the price.

The property revaluation is both a gift and curse. On one hand, Milford has become increasingly attractive to prospective homebuyers. On the other hand, soaring property values are hitting residents on fixed incomes especially hard through higher property tax bills.

Yet Connecticut’s affordability crisis did not begin yesterday, especially with property taxes.

At both the national and local levels, Democrats and Republicans acknowledge the rising cost-of-living concerns. But in Connecticut, this has been a “steady habit” — and one driven largely by decades of near one-party rule in the state legislature.

For years, Connecticut has ranked among the states with the highest property taxes, highest energy costs, weakest business climates, and largest pension burdens in the nation. It is routinely cited as one of the worst states for retirees and struggles to deliver strong economic returns for working families. Recreational and family-oriented opportunities also lag behind many competing states.

When the cost of living becomes unaffordable, businesses and residents naturally leave for states with lower taxes and fewer regulations. That reality helps explain Connecticut’s ongoing struggles to attract and retain a thriving tax base.

And a shrinking tax base creates a dangerous cycle. Fewer businesses and residents mean less revenue to support government services. As a result, those who remain are forced to shoulder an even heavier tax burden to sustain growing government operations and obligations.

Unfortunately, state Democrats continue to ignore many of these root causes. During this past legislative session, lawmakers approved one-time municipal aid to ease mill rates may help temporarily. However, this is ultimately a band-aid solution. Meaningful long-term relief requires reducing burdensome regulations and taxation. For instance, scaling back stringent environmental standards that impact energy costs would help reduce costs for everyone, including businesses, consumers, municipalities, and public schools.

How does this affect Milford? Because every one of these policies impacts our residents’ bottom line. If Connecticut truly wants to reduce property taxes, the state must attract more businesses, more investment, and stronger economic growth to lessen the burden placed on homeowners.

How do we improve our economic outlook? The answer is neither new nor complicated: lower taxes and reduce unnecessary regulations. States such as Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina are proving that approach works. Connecticut should take notice.

But Connecticut also needs greater ideological diversity in government. For too long, Democrats have not been required to seriously collaborate with Republican counterparts. The last period of genuine bipartisanship came in 2017, when both parties worked together to enact the fiscal guardrails that have since brought greater stability to the state’s finances.

If Connecticut has seen any meaningful fiscal improvement in recent years, a clear line can be drawn to those guardrails. Bipartisanship worked then — and Connecticut would benefit from far more of it today.

May 4 Meeting

A few days before the budget vote, the BOA held its regular monthly meeting — with a focus on re-opening the Charter.

As I mentioned in my previous “Notes,” I’m not opposed to amending the Charter to reflect updated technical corrections and city departments titles, etc. These are targeted, defined items.

However, in the proposed ordinance, there was a third resolution that stated: “The Charter, as a whole, should be reviewed to determine whether the provisions set forth, given changes in society and technological advances, are consistent with today’s standards and requirements.”

I took issue with this last point, and said so at the meeting. Below were my remarks:

This is more of a comment — but I can’t support revising the Charter with the recommendations listed — particularly the vague and broad third recommendation consisting of language like “given changes in society” and “consistent with today’s standards.” These are not identifiable issues — and the rationale is questionable since standards can change. This recommended commission should have concrete items and tasks.

We should be cautious and intentional about what we address and revise. The Charter is to Milford as the Constitution is the United States. Revising the Charter is not to be taken lightly. And why the rush for this year? Why now?

The third recommended item is not transparent — and I can’t in good conscience vote to change our governing document without a clear pathway of what we’re trying to remedy that will impact the City for the better.

The Charter should be treated with intentionality, respect, and an upfront openness — and this framework should transcend time, not “today’s standards.” That’s why I’ll be a NO tonight.

Ultimately, reopening the Charter required a two-thirds vote, which failed on party lines.

There was also discussion about remaining American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds that need to be allocated and/or expended by year’s end, otherwise the city loses them. Initially intended for a new Health Department facility at Daniel Wasson Field (which I disagreed with due to location and feasibility), the mayor is scrapping the project. Instead, the Health Department may utilize space in the Parsons Government Building; and the mayor recommended reallocating the $4.97 million toward other departments such as new police vehicles and equipment, security and communications upgrades, among others.

Even so, there would be roughly $700,000 left. To Republicans, with the unallocated monies, this was an opportunity for the city to cover the Milford Senior Center’s $120,000 budget request. With the funds, Republicans believed we could stave off price increases and maintain the quality nutritional program for our senior population — as well as assist Meals on Wheels. (See my previous Notes for details)

Republicans introduced an amendment to do just that. To me, I thought it was a worthy gesture — especially since seniors endured enormous challenges during COVID. ARPA was intended to address the pandemic’s impact. However, the amendment was voted down on party lines; and ultimately, the ARPA reallocation package passed without amendments.

The School Long-Term Facilities Plan

The BOE finally adopted a long-term plan to “retire” several schools over the next 20 years. (See here) The projected price tag? Nearly $1.5 billion — to close down facilities, while constructing new ones.

On the surface, that cost seems excessive, especially given that some of the maintenance needs are temporary and may become irrelevant within a few years if the facilities are no longer used as schools. It also includes creating new “transition” spaces in facilities that are ultimately expected to be retired.

Moreover, the process — two decades — seems drawn out and will, no doubt, incur additional costs to taxpayers than the projected estimate. I understand the well-intentioned sensitivity to our staff, parents, and students regarding evolving educational landscapes, but if labor is expensive now, imagine in 20 years? Having served on the Permanent Schools Building Facilities Committee, which oversees city construction efforts, projects can go overtime and over budget rather quickly. For instance, Pumpkin Delight renovations exceeded projections by several million dollars. West Shore Middle School was the same.

To me, since the public is now well aware of school closures, it seems financially and emotionally prudent to retire schools at a quicker pace — perhaps at 10 years. Better to rip off the band-aid than peel little-by-little. It’ll save money and (possibly) headaches for our community, staff, parents, and students.

Time will tell.

But as always, whether you agree or not, I’m grateful for your time — and commentary/opinions.

*This article was originally published by RealClearReligion.

As more Gen Z men explore religion and alternative career paths, while their peers increasingly embrace socialism and communism, the feast of St. Joseph the Worker — May 1st — takes on a new relevance. This convergence of trends presents a timely opportunity for the Church to re-emphasize Joseph, the foster father of Jesus Christ, as a model for young men seeking stability and purpose amid shifting cultural currents.

In an April Gallup survey, 42% of American young men say religion is “very important” — which is not only an increase from 28% in 2022-23, but also outpaces young women. While not quite a revival, at least statistically, prognosticators have noted a percolating phenomenon with Catholicism in particular attracting this demographic.

At the same time, college enrollment among Gen Z has declined. Instead, 60% of young men are more likely to pursue careers in construction, electrical work, and plumbing, with the rise in artificial intelligence, college debt, and job security as driving factors. In response, institutions like the College of St. Joseph the Worker are emerging, combining vocational training with a faith-based lens.

Economic realities are also difficult to ignore. Surveys consistently show Gen Z grappling with debt, underemployment, market instability, and limited housing affordability. Indeed, there is a ‘failure to launch’ problem with plenty unable to afford leaving their parents’ homes. Against this backdrop, favorability of socialism and communism has grown, with 38% of Gen Z expressing favorable views — up from 18% in 2010 among similar age groups.

Together, these trends point to a generation — and particularly young men — at a crossroads, navigating questions of purpose, true masculinity, and economic stability.

In that context, the Church’s designation of May 1 as the feast of St. Joseph the Worker appears especially prescient and timely, and an opportunity to engage a demographic increasingly receptive of religiosity.

St. Joseph’s quiet witness in Scripture speaks volumes. Described as a “just man,” one of the few in Biblical history, Christ’s foster father was pious; humble in trusting God’s will; charitable by welcoming the Virgin Mary into his home; diligent in his carpentry; and action-oriented, protecting and providing for the Virgin Mary and Jesus, even so far as leading the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt to escape authoritarian danger.

For his witness, he has been named patron of the universal Church and recognized as our spiritual father.

Throughout Church history, saints and pontiffs have revered St. Joseph’s silent fortitude, intercession, and work ethic. As St. Josemaría Escrivá once preached:

“Joseph was a strong man, a working man, yet his life was permeated by deep faith. Work was for him not merely the way to earn a living, but a way of serving God and others. In his life we see how ordinary work can become a path to holiness.”

God created work — and, as such, work is inherently good. Man was designed to “till the ground.” As The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him,” but it “can also be redemptive.” Even at His ascension, Christ gave a new directive to evangelize, which, in itself, is a holy work.

In short, we are not meant to be idle; nor will we be idle in heaven, but fully united in God’s salvific work.

For men, who are instinctively providers, work is a crucial aspect of one’s identity and responsibility; and likewise, an available avenue for insidious forces to wreak havoc in the human heart, plaguing and bombarding men with doubts, lack of confidence, and even self-worth.

Communism is such a force — because the ideology’s bedrock removes God from the sphere, thus reducing work to mere materialism. The Church has repeatedly rejected the ideology. Within the century since Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto (1848), the Church released several encyclicals denouncing its atheistic and totalitarian roots, even so far as labeling it a “satanic scourge.” As clearly emphasized in Divini Redemptoris (1937), “[Communism] subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose of the State; because it denies the rights, dignity and liberty of human personality.”

That is why the Vatican, in 1955, instituted the feast day of St. Joseph the Worker: to specifically counteract communistic endeavors which aimed to not only distort man’s relationship with work, but to usurp the secular holiday, May Day, and re-designate it as “Communist Worker’s Day.”

When announcing the new feast day, Pope Pius XII offered St. Joseph as a prime model — the “humble craftsman of Nazareth” — who “embod[ied] before God and the Holy Church the dignity of the manual laborer” and a “provident guardian” of families, as opposed to communism’s vision for workers.

That witness remains relevant today; and the Church, once again, should re-emphasize the importance and wisdom of St. Joseph the Worker. As Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Patrick Kelly wrote in a recent column, Christ’s foster father is a “model of authentic masculinity: humble, obedient, courageous.”

Men need models. And as Archbishop Fulton Sheen once observed, we imitate what we love.

In an era marked by uncertainty and materialism in the cultural and economic landscape, yet renewed spiritual interest among young men, St. Joseph’s steadiness is the answer, and imperative to imitate. In his quiet witness, and even financial poverty, Christ’s foster father faithfully oriented his heart not to comfort and recognition, but heaven, even if he knew not the path ahead.

True purpose and happiness cannot fill the infinite chasms of the human heart — only God’s love and mercy can. St. Joseph recognized this truth. In the end, he lived a holy life, died a holy death, and — after the Virgin Mary — has been deemed the greatest saint to ever live.

On this feast day, men — go to St. Joseph. He will not let you down, but raise your heart toward Him in whom we find rest and fulfillment.

St. Joseph the Worker, pray for us!

*This article was originally published in The Greenwich Sentinel on April 16, 2026.

The General Assembly is considering a new bill that would alter the balance of authority in Connecticut’s public schools by shifting final employment decisions away from locally elected Boards of Education and into the hands of an unelected arbitrator.

The proposal, HB 5218 — An Act Concerning Teachers — includes some reasonable provisions. Establishing a clear “just cause” standard for teacher discipline and expanding workers’ compensation protections for teachers injured by students are both constructive steps. These goals deserve support.

However, the bill goes further — and in doing so, it raises a fundamental concern about governance.

At its core, Connecticut’s education system has long relied on local control. This tradition reflects a broader American principle: decisions should be made as close to the people as possible. Local boards of education are elected, operate in public, and are directly accountable to parents and taxpayers in their communities. That structure ensures that policies reflect local priorities and that decision-makers can be held responsible at the ballot box.

HB 5218 would weaken that framework.

By making a neutral arbitrator’s decision binding in teacher termination cases, the bill effectively removes final authority from local boards. In practice, even after a board reviews evidence, holds hearings, and votes on a personnel decision, an arbitrator could override that outcome.

Consider a scenario in which a school district seeks to terminate a teacher for repeated misconduct or failure to meet professional standards. After reviewing the case, the elected board votes to uphold the termination. Under this bill, an arbitrator could reverse that decision and reinstate the teacher.

In that moment, the judgment of the community, expressed through its elected representatives, would no longer be final.

Supporters of binding arbitration argue that it promotes fairness and impartiality. That concern is understandable. But fairness does not require eliminating accountability. Local boards already operate within established legal frameworks, follow due process, and are subject to public scrutiny. Replacing their authority with that of an arbitrator risks reducing transparency and public input in the name of neutrality.

As a former member of the Milford Board of Education from 2019 to 2022, I saw firsthand the responsibility entrusted to local officials. When residents elected us, we were entrusted to listen, deliberate, and decide in the best interest of our community. Those decisions were not made lightly. They reflected careful consideration of policy, fairness, and the expectations of the people we served.

That is the essence of representative government: authority flows from the public, and elected officials are accountable for how they use it.

An arbitrator, no matter how qualified or well-intentioned, operates outside that framework of accountability. Their decisions are not subject to voter review, nor are they made within the same public-facing process. Over time, shifting authority away from elected boards risks eroding local governance, and concentrating decision-making power in less transparent forums.

There are also practical considerations. Expanding the role of binding arbitration could increase the number of disputes that escalate, raising costs for school districts and, ultimately, taxpayers. It may also lengthen the time required to resolve personnel matters, creating uncertainty for school systems.

This debate is not simply about employment procedures. It is about who governs local schools.

Final decision-making — whether related to budgets, curriculum, or personnel— has traditionally rested with locally elected officials for a reason. That structure promotes accountability, responsiveness, and public trust.

If the legislature wishes to strengthen due process protections, it can do so without removing final authority from local boards.

HB 5218, as written, moves in a different direction.

Lawmakers should amend the bill to preserve local control, maintain transparency, and uphold the principle of democratic accountability that has long guided Connecticut’s education system.

*This article was originally published in ‘From the Academy,’ a quarterly magazine by The James G. Martin Center for Academic Revival. This was an interview with Frank Hanna, an investor in entrepreneurial innovation: in the commercial world, in the Church, and in other philanthropic initiatives to promote human flourishing.

Education is not simply the transfer of knowledge but the formation of a human soul and its direction toward truth. In today’s educational landscape, however, truth is often treated as a nebulous concept—but not to Frank Hanna, a Catholic-education investor, merchant banker, and CEO of Hanna Capital in Atlanta, Georgia.

To Hanna, truth is not subjective. Its fullness, he argues, has been entrusted to the Catholic Church. As such, if learning is the pursuit of knowledge—and of an understanding of God and His creation—then curricula lacking this ethos will leave the soul wanting and uninformed.

“When I started learning about my faith on my own in law school, I came to the conclusion that a complete education is a Catholic education,” Hanna said. “At the end of the day, education is bringing a person to truth, and so if the Catholic faith is true, then you can’t provide a complete education without it.”

For nearly forty years, this imperative has fueled Hanna’s extensive work strengthening and founding more than a dozen Catholic institutions, from preschools to colleges and universities. Indeed, it is a paramount philanthropic cause in his estimation.

“When I started learning about my faith on my own in law school, I came to the conclusion that a complete education is a Catholic education.”

His charitable efforts have earned him wide acclaim—and numerous awards—as well as prominent positions on the boards of various nonprofit organizations and universities, including the chairmanship of a Commission on Education Excellence under President George W. Bush. He has also authored two bestselling books, What Your Money Means: And How To Use It Well (2008) and A Graduate’s Guide to Life: Three Things They Don’t Teach You in College That Could Make All the Difference (2017).

But earthly recognition pales when compared to eternity and the moral obligation that implies. Investing and philanthropy, then, are not merely about laying bricks and mortar—though a tangible educational environment matters—but about elevating souls to God’s glory.

“When you look at an investment, you’re looking at the amount of the dividend you might receive from your investment, and the number of years it might yield return,” Hanna said. “If you form a soul—or help form a soul—the dividend goes forever.”

Several sociological trends have gripped the modern educational landscape, from increased secularism in education and the public square to accelerated inflation in higher education, generations over-saddled with student-loan debt, and even projected demographic cliffs.

Despite these circumstances, Hanna argues that Catholic philanthropy can provide an antidote to the prevailing culture’s malaise—by providing a countercultural model for the holistic formation of students, preparing them for their God-given vocation.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and concision.

***

Andrew Fowler: For nearly forty years, you’ve been involved in the Catholic educational landscape. But what motivated you to launch into this passion?

Frank Hanna: It was forty-four years ago. In 1982, as a college sophomore, I had worked on some political campaigns—and I was very interested in politics. But even by the time I was twenty years old, I had figured out that when it came to changing the world through electoral politics, most people had already formed their opinions about the big issues by the time they were voting.

That got me interested in saying, “Well, when are people’s ideas formed?” So I started studying this while I was an undergraduate and realized that voters’ ideas were formed much earlier in life. So when I was going to law school, I decided I’d plan to create a nationwide system of schools. That was my ambition because, I believed, the ones currently existing had not been doing a good job.

Now, I know that sounds incredibly ambitious for somebody who, at the time, was twenty years old, but that’s what I had my sights on. I spent all my spare time researching this topic while I was in law school.

Andrew Fowler: What were some of the issues you identified as problematic in education?

Frank Hanna: In the early 1990s, Christopher Whittle founded the Edison Project, and he even brought in the president of Yale University—Benno C. Schmidt—to help lead it. The effort was a for-profit initiative to ultimately improve schools. They poured millions of dollars into it, but I remember thinking, at the time, “This isn’t going to work.”

What I was seeing on the ground didn’t match the theory behind the Edison project. And, later, polling confirmed this. Most Americans think public schools are a mess—they’ll grade them as a D. But when asked about their own local school, they give it an A or a B.

Why is that? Well, if they give their school a grade of D, they have to do something, right? But they’d rather give their school a grade of A or B because, by the time their kids are in school, their family has become settled in a certain neighborhood and made other choices—and by admitting their school is failing they’d have to do something uncomfortable.

That phenomenon continues today—and the Edison Project collapsed in the early 2000s.

“Adam and Eve said, ‘We love this garden. This is great and really beautiful—but we’d like it on our own terms.’ That is what our society lives by now.”

Andrew Fowler: How would you define education, and what are cultural or bureaucratic obstacles to providing a better education for our students, especially in public schools?

Frank Hanna: My favorite definition of education is from Josef Jungmann [1889-1975]—who was an Austrian Jesuit liturgist. He defined education as the process of introducing a person to reality.

Now, there is a great line in T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets where he says, “Humankind can only bear so much reality”; so part of the problem in education is that we don’t want to face reality. When I say we don’t want to face reality, I mean, as our society has moved away from religion—not just Catholicism but from many organized religions—people say, “Well, I’m spiritual.” What they really mean is, “I feel a sense of transcendence in me. I acknowledge that. I want to give life to that, but I’d like to do it on my own terms.”

That’s exactly what Adam and Eve said. They said, we love this garden. This is great and really beautiful—but we’d like it on our own terms. That is what our society lives by now. Pope Benedict XVI talked about the dictatorship of relativism. We can speak about freedom, but what we really want is license: to define our reality as we want to define it.

Once you go down the road of denying or defining your own reality, which, as Eliot said, we can only bear so much of, you start to manifest social dysfunction. Our schools ought to at least objectively teach what is good for you—but we moved away from that.

That’s why, during peak wokeness, expecting kids to be able to do math correctly, or even reading Shakespeare, was somehow biased. Yet, if it’s biased, it’s biased toward the good, the true, and the beautiful. It is biased toward God.

If you celebrate what is evil and deviant, and that’s your truth, then there is no anchor for goodness.

When I was a child, we lived in a more cohesive Judeo-Christian culture, even in public schools, and so there was a more unified understanding of the truths that should be taught. We actually prayed before lunch at my public school.

There are a myriad of problems that affect our schools, but, in the end, they reflect our culture. And today our culture is post-Christendom.

Andrew Fowler: In recent years, it is widely recognized that Catholics have not been properly catechized, such as a belief in Transubstantiation, according to a 2019 Pew Research Center Survey. What credence do you give to those polls, and what do they reflect?

Frank Hanna: I think, among most Catholics, most do believe in the Eucharist. Even the ones who have fallen away forever, they know it’s special—and it’s one of the few things that bring them back.

What many baptized Catholics don’t believe on a daily basis is that they may go to Hell. “How can a just God not have anybody go to Heaven?” “God loves you no matter what, just as you decide to be you.” This has been our dominant Western ethos—it’s the modern Nietzsche: God is dead, and man killed God, because he believes he has no real need for God or atonement.

Most people live with the idea that we will meet Christ at the end—but he’ll understand our lives no matter what we may have done to ourselves or others, since he is total love. But if you believe Jesus, if you believe Jesus was God, that is not what Jesus taught. You only need to read the Gospels to understand that He was constantly seeking to have us repent and change our ways.

We are in a therapeutic culture. We believe no one should feel uncomfortable. The public schools, in effect, are about making everybody feel comfortable. And, too often, colleges are about providing some sort of country-club finishing school for the upper middle class and well-to-do people.

“We are in a therapeutic culture. We believe no one should feel uncomfortable.”

Andrew Fowler: How can education, as a field, be enhanced, especially with various methods of teaching and the rise of new technologies?

Frank Hanna: I’ve been involved with schools that are already established, and particularly involved with new schools because our models have not been significantly updated in the last one hundred years for education. The cost structures are prohibitive—and for Catholic schools, K-12, it’s really hard to provide it for less than $12,000 per child per year if you’re counting all of your costs.

For that reason, I’m interested particularly in new models like hybrids, and I am also encouraging homeschooling.

And I believe we’re going to need to explore the use of artificial intelligence. Now, obviously, you need to ward off dangers. The most important part of education is the formation of a human being, and part of that formation is the transmission of knowledge—about history, English, and math. Not all of that transmission process needs a human being. In fact, I would argue that, for me, at least half of what I’ve learned in the entirety of my life has been from books, with no other human sitting beside me or standing in front of me teaching.

However, we still sit everybody in front of a human being for eight hours and go through a process. It’s very expensive—and, yes, we don’t want kids on screens all the time. But you could theoretically have books and curricula on screens that could go at each individual child’s speed and get more learning accomplished.

Right now, as currently constituted, much of what we do for kids in K-12 is designed to have them feel accepted and popular. That’s not a bad thing. Human beings are supposed to be in groups and loved. So, it’s not a bad motivation—but we can’t submit all the other transcendent things to that.

That’s why, I decided, as someone investing money in philanthropy and charity, what better investment as an investor than the formation of a human soul. Jesus himself told us to store up treasures in Heaven.

Andrew Fowler: We’ve talked significantly about K-12, but what about colleges and universities? What has drawn you into that arena?

Frank Hanna: One reason colleges are intriguing is that they can draw students from all over, not just a thirty-minute drive away; so they can be magnets for spiritual and intellectual fervor. In a certain way, these colleges and universities can be like pilgrimage sites if they’re doing their job well.

Colleges also address students during a period when the human brain is actually undergoing biological changes, and I believe that is often the most effective education which you can impart. Moreover, this is the time when someone is becoming an adult. Unfortunately, today, much of our process leads to an extended adolescence that goes to about thirty.

Andrew Fowler: How has the culture—and lack of true formation—impacted college students?

Frank Hanna: Some students are going to college to increase their economic earning power. Others, just for a social experience. But, for the former, colleges are losing that argument for a number of people. The data shows that it may not help your earning power, particularly if you go into debt.

To the latter group, children have grown up hearing—from everybody they know and love—that college is the best four years of your life. This thinking has led to so much unhappiness because students are thinking, “I’m not happy every day, but everyone told me this is the best time of my life. What am I doing wrong?” This is what college has become. It’s this place where you go to have the best four years of your life, but it is supposed to be preparing you for seventy years of a good life.

I once met this student who wanted a degree in international business. Why did he pursue that: to have a great lifestyle of the rich and famous. But with that kind of career, it’s very difficult to form friends or get married. You’re constantly moving. Friends and family are the things that matter—but the culture tells our young people the opposite.

“Catholic colleges have a distinct advantage—we’re giving people the preparation they need.”

The dominant theme of our culture is, you go to college to have a good time and get a job credential. And then you have the next ten years where you’re supposed to have every sensory experience you can have in as many different places as you can have them.

But that is how Catholic colleges have a distinct advantage—we’re actually giving people the preparation they need. And maybe all of these institutions could create curriculums that can be completed in three years, to both limit expenses and help our students begin their adult lives sooner.

Andrew Fowler: What is the status of Catholic colleges and universities?

Frank Hanna: Compared with a generation ago, I believe we have many more vibrant, dynamic, faithful institutions of Catholic higher education. That’s a very encouraging thing, mostly with newer colleges and universities, but there have also been several of our Catholic institutions which have undergone a process of revivification and have become much more clear in their mission. At the end of the day, they’re in the business of forming souls and drawing people closer to God.

There are still Catholic universities which, if you said, “Your main mission to draw people closer to God,” might squirm, and that’s a shame, because it’s actually supposed to be our entire mission here on Earth.

We went through a period when the colleges, a lot of our Catholic colleges and universities during the 60s and 70s, were intentionally distancing themselves from the authority of the Church. Recently, I think we’ve had a reaction against that.

The downside of what’s happened in higher education is that, with the demographic implosion going on right now, there are fewer kids going to college. And when you have a market shrinking, the people who tend to survive that shrinkage are the biggest and wealthiest—and many of our most vibrant Catholic institutions are not among the wealthiest.

Andrew Fowler: So how can philanthropy bolster Catholic institutions? What can schools do to be innovative to meet today’s challenges and reinvigorate culture with a foundation in the transcendentals?

Frank Hanna: We have to be intentional about forming souls. If not, I don’t know why one would be in the business of doing it. But we have to be willing to think in an experimental, innovative manner.

Ultimately, intentionality matters. But I believe we are going to see more specialization with universities. We may actually see colleges not only teach theology but even the trades. We want our professors, lawyers, accountants, and carpenters to be like Jesus, and we want our children to learn how to find their spouses and vocations. We need to prepare people as if they were our own children.

*This article was originally published by Yankee Institute

As the legislative session approaches its May 6 conclusion, a new national report underscores what many residents already feel: the state’s affordability challenges remain deeply entrenched.

Despite acknowledging cost reduction as a top priority heading into the 2026 session, lawmakers are advancing policies that risk moving in the opposite direction — potentially worsening the state’s already high cost-of-living and weak economic outlook.

According to Rich States, Poor States, published by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Connecticut ranks 46th in the United States for its economic outlook and 48th for economic performance. The outlook ranking represents a decline from the previous year and continues a troubling long-term trend.

Over nearly two decades, Connecticut has consistently placed in the bottom tier, averaging around 38th overall. Its highest placement was 32nd in 2009, while it fell as low as 47th in both 2015 and 2016.

These findings are not an outlier.

Other national assessments, including the Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index, Wallethub’s rankings for business environment and costs, and CNBC’s 2025 “America’s Top States for Business” report, show similar results. Across these measures, Connecticut consistently underperforms in areas tied to economic competitiveness, including tax burden, regulatory climate, and labor policy.

Overall, the state imposes high personal and corporate income taxes, maintains one of the heaviest property tax burdens in the nation, and ranks poorly in structural indicators such as estate taxes and labor flexibility.

Connecticut did post strong GDP growth in 2025, ranking 12th nationally. But that short-term performance masks longer-term challenges. From 2014 to 2024:

• GDP growth ranked 41st

• Domestic migration ranked 43rd

• Non-farm employment growth ranked 45th

These indicators suggest that while the state can experience periods of growth, it continues to struggle with attracting residents, retaining workers, and expanding its economic base.

Even within New England, a region known for higher costs, Connecticut trails most of its neighbors: See Table One

While other states in the region face similar structural challenges, Connecticut’s relative performance remains among the weakest.

There has been progress.

Since 2017, Connecticut’s fiscal guardrails have introduced spending discipline, bond rating upgrades, helped reduce pension liabilities, and contributed to the buildup of a $4.1 billion Rainy Day Fund. These reforms also enabled the largest income tax cut in state history.

However, the state still carries one of the highest debt burdens in the nation, particularly when measured on a per-capita basis. In recent years, adjustments to the guardrails have also raised concerns about maintaining their long-term effectiveness.

Preserving the core principles of these reforms, disciplined spending, predictable budgeting, and continued progress on long-term liabilities, remains critical to improving the state’s fiscal outlook.

Strengthening Connecticut’s economic outlook trajectory will require addressing structural challenges in taxation, spending, and regulation.

Instead, lawmakers are considering proposals that would increase taxes on high earners and businesses, including a potential statewide property tax, higher income tax rates, and a capital gains surcharge.

These policies carry risks. Connecticut already relies heavily on a relatively small group of high-income taxpayers (2.5%), who account for a disproportionate share of income tax revenue (41%). Increasing that burden further may influence decisions about where individuals live, work, and invest.

A shrinking tax base would have broader consequences, affecting revenue stability and the state’s ability to fund services.

Connecticut’s challenges are not new: they are structural and well-documented.

High housing costs, rising energy prices, and a heavy tax burden continue to drive concerns about affordability. Surveys consistently show residents considering relocation to states with lower costs and stronger economic growth.

At the same time, population growth in lower-cost states across the South and Southeast reflects a broader trend: individuals and businesses are responding to policy environments that support affordability and opportunity.

Reversing course will require more than incremental adjustments.

It will require a renewed focus on fiscal discipline, structural reform, and policies that improve competitiveness, including controlling spending, maintaining effective guardrails, and reducing tax and regulatory burdens.

Connecticut has seen what works. The challenge now is sustaining and building on those reforms.

As the legislative session enters its final weeks, the direction is becoming clear: without meaningful structural change, the state risks continuing the same pattern of high costs, slow growth, and persistent outmigration that has defined its economic trajectory for decades.

*This article was originally published by The American Mind.

For decades, the relationship between the United States and the Vatican has played a vital role in promoting individual liberties, religious freedom, and resisting authoritarianism in the West. This partnership, forged by then-President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, helped hasten the dissolution of the Soviet Union and contributed to the liberation of millions from Communism’s grip.

When aligned, America and Rome have exercised a formidable moral and geopolitical influence, representing the best of Western civilization. Yet the current feud between them, as historian Paul Kengor suggests, potentially presents a new cold war that could have deep ramifications for the future of free government.

While tension between political leaders and pontiffs is nothing new in world history, open hostility risks undermining cooperation at a moment when it is badly needed. The path back to stability—and to the renewal of Western civilization—will require both Trump and Leo to draw from the lessons of the past.

Round One

For Trump, who is lobbing derogatory insults at the Holy Father, history offers a clear warning: conflicts with the papacy rarely end well for political leaders.

Napoleon Bonaparte learned this lesson the hard way.

Following the French Revolution’s Jacobin chaos and anti-clericalism, Napoleon initially restored relations with the Catholic Church through the Concordat of 1801. For a time, he was hailed as a stabilizing force and the “Restorer of Religion.” Despite the renewed agreement, the French emperor largely viewed religion as “a social utility” and a tool of statecraft, per Andrew Roberts’s Napoleon: A Life.

Within several years, however, relations with the Vatican rapidly deteriorated, with Napoleon’s ire being ignited by Pope Pius VII’s neutrality in continental politics. In response, the French emperor annexed the Papal States and then imprisoned the Holy Father. Unsurprisingly, these moves backfired. Catholics across Europe were outraged, and the pope’s dignified resistance cast Napoleon as a tyrant. In Spain, anger over Napoleon’s treatment of the Church helped fuel insurgency and resistance to French rule. Even secular observers recoiled at the excess.

What began as an assertion of power weakened Napoleon, diplomatically and politically.

Trump is no Napoleon. And no similar extreme scenario is on the horizon. Nevertheless, the broader lesson applies: antagonizing the Holy Father is not a good idea. If Trump hopes to build an international coalition to counter Iran, publicly disparaging the pope as “WEAK” on crime and “terrible” on foreign policy risks alienating key allies and domestic support, thus undermining his own objectives.

Indeed, Catholics including high-profile clergy like Bishop Robert Barron and the Knights of Columbus have denounced the president’s treatment of the pontiff. CatholicVote, a right-leaning advocacy group whose former president is currently the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, called Trump’s rhetoric “insulting,” arguing that it “crossed, again, a line of decorum.” For the 2026 congressional midterms, the president-pontiff rift might exacerbate predicted Republican electoral defeats, leaving Trump less able to achieve his MAGA agenda in his last two years in office.

At the same time, Trump’s underlying concerns are not without merit. A nuclear Iran poses a legitimate national—and international—threat to global stability. The “death to America” chants notwithstanding (and even assassination attempts on Trump’s life), Iran has sponsored terrorism for nearly half a century, including the heinous October 7 massacre, which disrupted normalization talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Open borders, meanwhile, have brought increased crime to American cities and compounded financial burdens on taxpayers. If the president’s oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, Trump—and Congress—are duty-bound to improve the lives of American citizens.

Leo, on the other hand, as the Vicar of Christ, is equally justified in criticizing the president’s rhetorical threat to destroy Iran’s civilization as “truly unacceptable.” As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “The end does not justify the means,” meaning one cannot do evil even if it produces a good outcome. As for migration, Christ offered the parable of the Good Samaritan for a reason, and the lessons therein should cause us to reflect on “who is my neighbor.”

Yet moral clarity must also be paired with prudence. Leo must have calculated that his comment would goad a Trumpian response. After all, if not the Trump Administration, to whom was his message directed? The declaration, in some respects, may have been counterproductive to U.S.-Vatican relations.

Stronger Together

Another important point is that the Catholic Church has never been a pacifist entity entirely. Broad declarations such as “God does not hear the prayers of leaders who start wars” oversimplify a complex tradition. Throughout history, the Church has wrestled with the reality that force, in certain circumstances, may be necessary to preserve peace, protect the innocent, and defend Western civilization. The just war tradition exists precisely because the world is not free from grave threats.

On this point, Leo should draw lessons from another October 7 (this being in 1571) with another Pope Pius (Pius V).

The Battle of Lepanto is arguably one of the most consequential naval engagements in human history, as the Ottoman Empire not only threatened European sovereignty, but Christendom. In the years before, Islamic nations unleashed devastating assaults, killing Christians, capturing their territory, and enslaving many. Pius V recognized the danger of further Islamic conquests in the Mediterranean and knew the belligerent forces had to be halted.

In turn, in a show of diplomatic fortitude and agency, Pius assembled and financially supported a combined force known as the Holy League, which included Naples, Sardinia, Venice, Genoa, Savoy, and the Knights Hospitallers. Moreover, according to Word on Fire, he “ordered the churches of Rome opened for prayer day and night, encouraging the faithful to petition the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary through the recitation of the Rosary.”

Ultimately, the Holy League defeated the Ottomans. In honor, the Church now celebrates October 7 as the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary.

Yes, the peacemakers are blessed—but as Lepanto proves, peace sometimes can be achieved only through strength and action, not merely words alone. Today’s climate may require more action akin to Pius V or Pope John Paul II.

As Trump has suggested, Iran has been a bad actor for decades, disrupting peace in the Middle East while murdering its own citizens. Indeed, European capitals and the Vatican would be in range of an Iranian ballistic missile, as demonstrated by the recent launch against the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. Additionally, mass migration has ignited instability in the United States and Europe.

This is why the current dispute is so counterproductive. Both Trump and Leo are advancing arguments that, in isolation, contain elements of truth. But in conflict, those truths become obscured by rhetoric and reaction.

The stakes extend beyond personal disagreement. The U.S.-Vatican relationship has historically served as a stabilizing force, blending moral authority with political power. At a time of rising global instability—from the threat of nuclear proliferation to ongoing regional conflicts—division between these two actors weakens a partnership that has proven effective in confronting such challenges.

As the St. Francis Prayer asks, we can be instruments of God’s peace. Trump and Leo must be such instruments. Reviving the West requires boldness, moral clarity, and the shared understanding that human rights are endowed by our Creator, a truth both the United States and the Vatican believe wholeheartedly.

Despite the public feud between the president and the pope, reconciliation is possible. Both heads of state should meet and mend fences—quickly. People throughout the world, consciously or instinctively, look to both nations for guidance and hope. If a lasting peace is to be achieved, the U.S. and the Vatican need to be indispensable allies. Restoring that partnership will require both leaders to draw not only from conviction, but also from the lessons of history.

*This article was originally published by The Wall Street Journal. As such, I cannot share the full article at this time. But below is an excerpt.

A bipartisan coalition of all six New England governors has reached a conclusion that until recently would have been politically unthinkable: Renewable energy alone can’t deliver the affordable, reliable power the region needs.

In a March 31 joint statement, the governors called for a “diverse energy strategy,” identifying nuclear power as essential to meet growing demand and safeguard the region’s “collective energy future.” …

*Editor’s Note: This edition of “Notes” provides commentary on meetings since January 2026, as well as information regarding the non-finalized city budget.

Milford’s budget is going up — but your taxes might still rise even as the mill rate falls.

For the next few weeks, starting April 15 at 7pm, the Milford Board of Aldermen (BOA) will be meeting with each city department and the Board of Education (BOE) to justify their anticipated expenses, and bring transparency to city residents. See the full schedule below

Currently, the City Budget — approved by the Board of Finance (BOF) — is $278,267,615, which is an increase from last year’s $264,664,181. However, the recommended mill rate (28.57) is 0.98 mills lower than the current fiscal year (29.55).

In its deliberations, the BOF accepted the BOE’s full request — an increase of 4.328%, equivalent to $4.9 million. The total BOE budget is $118,952,091.

I will reserve full judgment until after meeting with each department; but on an initial glance, the City is proposing utilizing $12 million in our Appropriated Fund Balance — double from last year’s approved budget.

What does this mean? To stabilize city expenses and avoid larger tax increases, we may potentially dip more into our reserves — which, ironically, some of my Democratic colleagues, who hold the majority, opposed last year under a Republican administration during the Election Year.

Nevertheless, there are several risks in doing so, including the potential impact to our bond rating. This matters because a strong bond rating reduces borrowing costs, free up resources for taxpayers, and send a signal to employers and investors that Connecticut is a safer place to do business. A stronger fiscal reputation attracts jobs, investment, and, over time, lowers the tax burden on residents.

Ultimately, there have been forces outside our control. The property revaluation (more on that below) increased by an average of 40% in Milford — meaning home values have remarkably skyrocketed. The flip-side, however, is these new home values will affect property taxes. As a CT Insider report summarized:

Residents will almost certainly still end up paying more in property taxes, despite the decreased tax rates, because their assessed property values are likely higher than after the last assessment in 2020.

So, yes: despite the mill rate’s projected decrease, it may rely on reserves — which raises short- and long-term concerns.

If you want to voice your concerns, please attend the April 15 meeting. If you cannot, please feel free to reach out to my personal email — andrew.fowler824@gmail.com — or text/call me at 203-859-8383.

December 1, 2025

So what else has been happening in Milford…

The December meeting was not the first after the election; but it provided an opportunity to re-address the ‘Nazi’ and vile vitriol slung at my Republican colleagues and me prior to Election Day (of which I recounted in the New York Post. See here).

Holly Mulrenan, who had been re-elected, was selected by Mayor Richard Smith to be his chief of staff. Due to the vacancy, the Democratic Town Committee selected Sonia Bannon to serve the remainder of Mulrenan’s term.

Since I authored that New York Post column, I felt it appropriate to express our Republican caucus’ position on appointments, and why we would approve Bannon as a replacement.

This was my statement:

Thank you Chairman Vetro. I just want to express, on behalf of my colleagues, why we’ll be voting for Sonia Bannon to fill the vacancy left by Aldermen Mulrenan.

To echo what others have expressed, we must return to precedent and civility regarding these matters: to accept and approve nominations put forth to various positions and committees, which weren’t entirely granted during the previous administration.

For the public record, the last nomination to fill a vacancy on this board was made within weeks of an election, and at the time, our caucus thought best to let the voters decide — to actually encourage the democratic process rather than us, among various other considerations. And the voters did.

And we’re grateful to our constituents for participating in this essential cornerstone of our republic.

Yet during that time, vile and dangerous accusations were lobbed at me and my family, and my colleagues — and it would be easy to sling more dirt. But I believe we all want this term to be a turning point in our society at-large. Civility starts in our hearts — and we can be either instruments of peace or vindictiveness.

Over the next two years, I hope for the former — for peace. We want to engage civilly on the issues. We want to work across the aisle — as my friend Damon Ralph spoke to earlier — because we all, Democrat or Republican, want a better Milford. Our identities go beyond party affiliation. We are all from Milford, we’re all neighbors, and we should strive for the best of our society. To leave a better city for those that follow in our footsteps.

With that, I’m proud to vote yes to Sonia Bannon — and am looking forward to working with her, and everyone on this board, to shepherd Milford in the days ahead.

January 5, 2026

January’s meeting was relatively light, focusing largely on appointments to boards and commissions. These roles are vital to civic engagement, and I thank those who volunteer their time to serve our community.

February 2, 2026

The major action item, aside from more appointments, was approving the Capitol Improvement Plan (CIP) — which lists desired major infrastructure projects (i.e., building roads, public facilities, or purchasing high-value equipment). Approval of the CIP does not necessarily mean the projects are greenlit. Instead, every project — which collectively amounted to more than $281 million — must obtain BOA approval before any construction begins.

I still, however, voted no — which has been the norm for me. A CIP is certainly a wish-list; but government wish-lists can often become reality. Moreover, I prefer evaluating projects individually rather than approving them broadly and opposing them later. For instance, there were several BOE-related items that, at the time, I thought might be unnecessary due to the looming Long-Range Facilities Plan and possible school closures. Why invest monies, bonded over 20 years, for short-term usability (at least for its intended purpose)?

Other items to note made by Mayor Smith were the city’s overtures of bringing Stew Leonard’s to Milford, and the launch of a quarterly newsletter. You can sign up for the latter, here.

March 2 & 10, 2026

Opening the Milford Charter has not been done in nearly 40 years — and I felt uncomfortable at the prospects during the March 2 meeting.

Perhaps a good faith gesture, Mayor Smith proposed appointing a Charter Revision Commission — consisting of three Republicans and two Democrats — to provide recommendations of updating Milford’s primary governing document, including, but not limited to:

• Lengthening the Mayor and City Clerk’s term from two to four years

• Revisions to reflect changes in City departments

• Updating the amount of members on the Pension & Retirement Board

• Review the schedule for the City’s Budget

To me, however, the urgency seemed unwarranted; and opening a Charter is unsettling. Yes, any proposed revisions would need further approval via referendum, but this is the analogy: the Charter is to Milford, as the U.S. Constitution is to the United States. This is not something to be trifled with — or spring upon the BOA or public without more contemplation and collective “buy-in.”

For those reasons, I voted no — and since the Charter Revision Commission required a two-thirds majority, the motion failed on party lines: 9-6.

That evening, the BOA also considered appropriating and bonding for three ordinances:

• Various sewer and sanitary projects: $6,050,000

• Various school projects: $5,940,000

• Various public improvements: $990,000

Our sewers need serious upkeep. And several city buildings need new roofs and other repairs. On those agenda items, I voted ‘yes.’ The school projects, however, I voted ‘no.’ As I previously mentioned, the BOE has been considering closing and/or merging schools. I thought prudent to withhold funding projects until the BOE determined which schools will remain open.

A few days later, the BOA met again to consider a structured five-year plan regarding the aforementioned revaluation. According to the mayor, the matter “needed to be addressed” before the BOF finalized the budget, as the revaluation would impact the mill rate.

The revaluation is a large tax burden shift onto residential properties — not commercial. Legally, Connecticut municipalities could implement a phase-in plan; and Milford has done so before. The mayor’s administration suggested this strategy would ease the financial burden over five years as opposed to one instant. Ultimately, the same amount per house would need to be paid — but the mayor insisted this would “soften the blow” on our community, especially those on fixed-incomes.

I asked whether deferring such payments would compound with interest, but Finance Director Peter Erodici assured me they would not. Moreover, the BOA was told it could end the five-year phase-in at any opportune time.

There are tradeoffs, however, with a phase-in strategy: it complicates administrative processes for the Tax Assessor and finance departments; commercial properties could appeal since it may shift more burdens to them; and the mill rate would be lowered if the full revaluation was approved.

Ultimately, I voted ‘yes’ to the phase-in because affordability is an issue right now. It should lessen the financial shock for homeowners — allowing our residents to plan their budgets more efficiently and with less stress.

April 6, 2026

The April meeting’s action items predominantly focused on approving resolutions for several projects:

• Upgrades to the Foran High School pool

• Hazardous waste removal, and HVAC, ventilation, boiler, and masonry improvements at various schools.

With the Long-Term Facilities Plan voted on weeks prior to this BOA meeting, I voted ‘yes’ — since we now have a clearer understanding of Milford’s educational future. (More on that below)

The Founders Walk Project — the reconfiguration of the area behind the Milford Public Library — also sought a cash advance of $600,000. I have been opposed to this project from the beginning. Why? The road behind the library will now go through land in-between the ballfields and playgrounds. Safety has been a major concern — from the Milford baseball community, parents, and the Milford Oyster Festival organizers. Personally, I wasn’t against revamping the area and addressing flooding concerns; but the road is different, again, due to safety considerations.

The BOA also approved receiving funds (more than $20,000) from a settlement related to the Opioid crisis. The funds will be used for educational purposes to combat drug usage and addiction.

Other Items to Highlight

The Short-Term Rentals Debate

Over the past several meetings, Public Comment has been the means to debate short-term rentals — like AirBnBs. Proponents of ordinances enacted across Connecticut, recommend a 30-day minimum stay in order to preserve neighborhood stability and prevent disorderly conduct from temporary clientele. They also suggest an ordinance would help with housing availability — preventing corporations from swooping up Milford’s housing stock for revenue generation rather than long-term residential living.

Opponents of such an ordinance have told the BOA most short-term rentals are owned by individuals — not corporations; and this is how they sustain their livelihoods. If enacted in Milford, such a measure would be economically restrictive. Moreover, a new ordinance would add another layer of bureaucratic regulations, while noise ordinances and other police measures already exist. Essentially, laws on the books should be enforced, rather than infringe on one’s ability to earn a living.

An ordinance in Milford remains to be seen. As a free-market proponent, I tend to lean toward less regulation. That is where my opinion is now — but it’s subject to change depending on if any ordinance is proposed.

The Future of Milford Schools — Closures and Consolidations

Now, to the future of Milford schools: the BOE is proposing to downsize the elementary schools from eight to six, with Calf Pen Meadow and Meadowside as the likely closures. Additionally, Harborside Middle School will be consolidated with East Shore and West Shore middle schools.

It’s a hard decision — but the reality is there are fewer students, and short- and long-term affordability must be considered.

Traffic Enforcement Cameras — Installed But Not Online

And one last item: the Milford Police Department announced the installation and location of several traffic enforcement cameras (of which I had been opposed to due to security reasons and even my qualms with ‘big’ surveillance government, but I digress). For more information, click here.

The Board of Aldermen Budget Schedule

These meetings are subject to change, depending on department heads’ availability or other unforeseen circumstances. Every meeting will begin at 7pm at City Hall. You can also livestream the meetings on MGAT here.

• April 15 — Public Hearing

• April 16 — Board of Education

• April 20

  • Boys and Girls Club

  • Police Department

  • Animal Control

  • Economic and Community Development

  • Open Space

  • Harbor Management and Marina

  • Borough of Woodmont

  • Recreation Department

  • Mayor’s Office

  • General Expenses

  • Law Department

  • Public Debt Service

  • Employee Benefits

  • Insurance and Bonds

  • Claims and Refunds

  • Benefit and Salary Reserve

  • Private School Textbook

  • Education Audit Fees

  • School Debt

  • Employee Benefits — Non-Teaching

  • Education — Health Insurance Contribution

• April 22

  • Fire Department

  • Lights, Hydrants, Water

  • Emergency Management

  • C-Med

  • Health Department

  • Education Health Services/School Nurses

  • Human Services Department

  • Public Library

  • Golf Course

  • Milford Arts Council

  • Council on Aging

  • Beth El Center

  • Transit District

  • Milford Government Access Television

  • Information Technology

• April 27

  • Finance Department

  • Probate Court

  • City Clerk

  • Registrar of Voters

  • Elections

  • Human Resources Department

  • Department of Permitting and Land Use

  • Bridges Community Healthcare, Inc.

  • Public Works Office

  • Highway/Parks

  • Building Maintenance

  • Engineering Department

  • General Garage

  • Solid Waste

  • Wastewater

  • Sewer Commission

A Final Note

If you made it this far, you are a trooper. My apologies for the delay in updating my ‘Notes…’ series.

Please, feel free to comment below or contact me with any concerns regarding maters in this edition or anything else related to Milford. Thank you for your time!

*This article was originally published in the Wall Street Journal. It was co-authored by Bryce Chinault.

In his State of the State Address on Jan. 8, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont outlined policy priorities for the 2025 legislative session. While most of his speech focused on state-specific issues such as fiscal responsibility, healthcare, education and energy, he took a moment to call on the U.S. Congress to “rethink the Jones Act.” It wasn’t the first time Mr. Lamont raised concerns about this particular law. In 2022 he and other New England governors wrote to the Biden administration urging the suspension of the law, which they argued “effectively precludes” the delivery of U.S.-exported liquefied natural gas to New England.

Officially known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the Jones Act blocks foreign-flagged ships from transporting goods between U.S. ports. The law has historically had many detractors from both sides of the aisle. Republican Sen. John McCain was against it. Hawaii Democratic Rep. Ed Case has blamed the law for “artificially inflating the cost of shipping goods” to his state. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for a “one-year waiver from the Jones Act for Puerto Rico” after Hurricane Fiona hit the island in 2022.

These pages have long editorialized in favor of the Jones Act’s repeal. The most recent attempt to do so was introduced by Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee in January 2024. But the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, then led by Democrats, took no action beyond reading the bill. Now the political landscape has shifted and Republicans control the committee. The time is right to revisit Mr. Lee’s bill.

The Jones Act has powerful supporters. Most of them represent constituencies that benefit financially in some way from the economic distortions the law creates. Groups such as the AFL-CIO, the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association and American Maritime Partnerships have spent heavily to preserve the Jones Act. Organizations like the Transportation Institute argue it is “critical” for national security and domestic economic stability, ensuring “reliable domestic water transportation service” and employment for hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens. Some Republicans, including Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy and Florida Rep. John Rutherford, support leaving the Jones Act alone.

President Trump has been coy, but in December he posted a link to a pro-Jones Act article on his Truth Social account. If he’s serious about bringing costs down for American consumers, he should call Mr. Lamont and listen to his pitch. Connecticut has no natural-gas reserves or production, and the state’s consumers pay some of the highest prices for energy in the nation. Almost all the LNG they use to cook and keep warm in the winter enters the state overland from New York.

In addition to driving up gasoline prices, the Jones Act increases the volume of heavy traffic on Connecticut highways by forcing goods to be delivered via long-haul vehicles. The law also makes replacing ferries—like those that cross Long Island Sound from Connecticut—difficult since new ships are required to be constructed in the U.S. American-built ships are “far less numerous and far less competitive than their international counterparts,” according to the Cato Institute.

Congress intended the Jones Act to bolster domestic shipbuilding. It hoped to spawn a ready supply of merchant mariners during war or national emergency. But by requiring every ship transporting goods between U.S. ports to be built, owned and largely crewed by U.S. citizens, the Jones Act limits competition. This has led to an aging fleet of U.S.-compliant ships, with fewer than 100 vessels left in operation, down from more than 250 in 1980. Contrary to the legislation’s original intent, there isn’t a single U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built LNG carrier sailing today. The country has few options for moving goods via maritime transport.

The U.S. is the world’s largest natural gas producer. But, according to a report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Jones Act means Americans “can’t realize many benefits arising from this incredible production.” Even progressive outlets like Vox and Slate concede that the law has stifled Puerto Rico’s long-term economic growth.

The Jones Act’s repeal would reduce energy and transportation costs—in Connecticut and every state. Mr. Trump has the power to strike a blow against inflation while restoring the American maritime industry to greatness. Smart Democrats like Mr. Lamont and other Northeast governors would likely support him.

Mr. Chinault is director of state government affairs at Abundance Institute. Mr. Fowler is communications specialist at Yankee Institute.

*This article was originally published by Philanthropy Daily.

It was a brisk Saturday morning in late March as more than two dozen people—including young children—gathered at a nebulous starting line, formed by dried seaweed and shells, on Walnut Beach in Milford, Conn.

Despite the cold, the mood was warm and civil. Clad in swimsuits or wacky Leprechaun costumes, the beachgoers braced themselves before plunging into Long Island Sound’s frigid waters. Spectators, meanwhile, dressed appropriately for the day’s conditions, encouraged their loved ones. Even the mayor stopped by to jokingly say a few words: “You’re all crazy.”

The cause, however, was not. For more than twenty years, the Literacy Volunteers of Southern Connecticut (LVSC) has held the “Leprechaun Leap” to fundraise for its programs to teach English proficiency to adults. As the organization recognizes, for their students, English is necessary to “become economically self-sufficient and to improve their quality of life here.” Last year, LVSC tutored 140 people.

Dunking into the cold waters, therefore, is a fleeting sacrifice of warmth and comforts (and believe me, as a leaper, the temperatures can be freezing) in order to elevate another person’s life—for a lifetime.

The “Leprechaun Leap”—like other polar plunges—is a microcosm of civil society’s best qualities: folks banding together, donating their time and money (or bodies) for a common cause to assist those in need.

Amid the enthusiasm, however, something—or some demographic—was noticeably absent. While participants included many middle-aged residents and younger students, there appeared to be fewer participants overall—primarily a dearth of young adults. This predicament reflects a national phenomenon, as young adults volunteer less than other age groups.

Research from the Stanford Center on Longevity notes varying forces restricting activity, such as “constraints in education, career developments, and family responsibilities,” to even a lack of awareness of local events.

Nevertheless, that morning underscored a deeper concern about the Leap’s long-term future, as well as reinforced the need to revitalize—and reinvigorate—participation in civil society at large.

Volunteerism is not merely edifying for one’s soul, but foundational to the American republic. As Daniel Stid, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) emphasized, “Civil society is the third leg of the stool of liberal democracy and no less critical” than our political and economic liberties. Further, through this pillar, “people are drawn out of their private concerns” and “stand a better chance of realizing their higher purposes by joining forces with others.” In short, without strong community engagement, America would cease to exist as currently constituted, and civil society is a conduit for a community to concretely address and alleviate social plights.

In LVSC’s circumstance, people—or leapers—help adult students develop their reading and writing comprehension skills. In turn, the adult students are empowered to not only be more self-reliant, but to improve their family’s livelihood—or even establish a bedrock for future generations. In fact, when one is helped, many receive residual benefits.

Indeed, no good act is truly isolated.

Following President Donald Trump’s March 2025 executive order designating English as the United States’ official language, efforts like the “Leprechaun Leap” take on added significance. For those seeking to fully integrate in American political, economic, and civil life, language access is more important than ever.

Granted, an individual must pursue their own happiness and shoulder the primary responsibility to better themselves. Yet a community cannot stand idly by if one is struggling or lacking resources. If love is willing the other’s good, then a community can love by bearing some of the load.

For those in Milford on that March morning, love took the form of plunging into cold waters. Yet any volunteering is a leap of sorts: stepping outside of ourselves—our comforts and daily routine—to lift up someone else. There is a sacrificial nature, and, frankly, every American has a duty to engage with civil society. Indeed, none of our surroundings or community events emerged from thin air. Someone had to act—to say “no” to themselves, and “yes” for another’s sake.

By doing the latter, our souls are uplifted because, as St. Francis is often credited for observing, “It is in giving that we receive.”

So, take the leap. Get involved. You may be briefly “cold”—or inconvenienced—but the impact to someone else, you, and America at large will last far longer.

*This article was originally published by Yankee Institute

Stanley Black & Decker’s decision to close its last manufacturing plant in New Britain, Conn., the city long known as “Hardware City,” is more than a local story. It is the latest example of how one of America’s most historically industrial states continues to struggle with competitiveness in the modern economy.

The closure will result in more than 300 layoffs. For nearly two centuries, Stanley Black & Decker manufactured products in New Britain. Now, even with its global headquarters still located there, its in-state manufacturing presence is coming to an end.

A company representative said the closure reflects shifting “demand for single-sided tape measures” that are “quickly becoming obsolete.” In response to the lost jobs, Gov. Ned Lamont (D-Conn.) has stated his office is “working closely” to “support affected workers,” while “reimagin[ing] the factory site so it can continue to create opportunity and strengthen New Britain’s economic future.”

But for Connecticut, the move is déjà vu — a recurring problem plaguing the “land of steady habits.”

Stanley Black & Decker joins a growing list of companies that have reduced operations or left Connecticut over the past two decades. The litany includes the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, General Electric, Aetna, Edible Arrangements, United Technologies and Raytheon, Stag Arms, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and even LEGO.

“How many times are we going to see this movie?” said Erin Stewart, former New Britain mayor and Republican gubernatorial candidate. “There’s only so long any enterprise can exist with the highest cost of living, the highest cost of energy, the highest cost of doing business, and utter hostility from the state capitol before they have to make the heartbreaking decision to leave or close their doors.”

The reasons vary by company, but the pattern has raised persistent questions about the state’s cost structure and regulatory climate.

Connecticut routinely finishes near the bottom in national business climate surveys. Wallethub ranked the Constitution State in the bottom tier for both ‘Business Environment’ and ‘Business Costs.’ Similarly, CNBC’s 2025 “America’s Top States for Business” report placed Connecticut 38th for Economy, 44th for Cost of Doing Business, and 37th for Cost of Living.

These issues stem largely from a burdensome tax climate. The Tax Foundation’s 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index ranked Connecticut 47th overall, ahead of only California, New Jersey, and New York. The state received particularly poor marks in property and individual income taxes.

Layered on top of that are high electric and gas rates, elevated housing costs, and one of the highest per-capita tax burdens in the country.

The economic pressure is not limited to corporations. A recent AARP survey found that 37% of Connecticut residents — ages 45 and older — are considering leaving the state, citing cost-of-living concerns. Business surveys show similar anxiety: 91% of respondents in a 2025 Connecticut Business & Industry Association survey reported rising costs, while only 12% believed the state’s business climate was improving.

Overall, in 2025, Connecticut’s economy had a “mixed year,” as the CT Mirror reported. Unemployment increased by one percent to 4.2% — still below the national average — but the state lost nearly 2,200 jobs. Meanwhile, the GDP grew 5.6% in the summer, among the best in the nation; however, the private sector’s job creation has largely “stalled,” as the CBIA suggests.

When businesses leave or reduce operations, the impact ripples outward. Local suppliers lose contracts. Municipal tax bases shrink. Workers relocate. Remaining taxpayers shoulder a larger share of fixed costs.

At the same time companies are evaluating whether to stay, Connecticut lawmakers are debating proposals that would further increase taxes and expand regulation, including higher income taxes on top earners, capital gains surcharge, a so-called mansion tax, and other proposals that would raise energy costs, regulate self-checkouts, and allow union workers on strike to collect unemployment benefits.

Supporters argue these policies promote equity and environmental goals. Critics contend unrestricted government spending inevitably produces cascading effects on both residents and businesses alike in the form of higher tax burdens.

The debate highlights a broader economic tension: whether states with high fixed costs can remain competitive without structural reform.

In today’s economy, capital and talent are mobile. Companies can shift operations across state lines with increasing ease. Workers can relocate. Investment flows to jurisdictions offering stability, predictability, and competitive cost structures.

Stanley Black & Decker’s plant closure may reflect evolving product demand. But it also occurs within a broader economic environment shaped by tax policy, energy costs, labor regulations, and fiscal management.

States such as North Carolina, Texas, and Florida have aggressively marketed lower taxes and streamlined regulatory frameworks to attract businesses and residents from higher-cost regions. For Connecticut, located between two of the nation’s highest-tax states — New York and Massachusetts — the opportunity exists to differentiate itself. Whether it chooses to do so is a policy decision.

Connecticut’s challenges are not inevitable. They are the result of choices — and they can be changed by different choices. When operating costs rise and regulatory complexity increases, companies reassess investment decisions. When taxes climb and affordability declines, residents consider relocating. Over time, those individual decisions accumulate into structural economic shifts.

If the state addresses its structural cost drivers and improves its competitive standing, it can strengthen its economic foundation. If not, closures like Stanley Black & Decker’s may become less surprising, and more routine.

*This article was originally published by Yankee Institute.

Connecticut is at a crossroads.

Throughout the 2026 legislative session, lawmakers have advanced a slate of proposals that risk worsening affordability rather than improving it. From weakening the fiscal guardrails that restored stability to state finances, to expanding taxes, mandates, and centralized control, these bills could shape Connecticut’s economic trajectory for years to come.

At a time when residents are already grappling with high housing costs, rising energy bills, and an expensive cost of living, policy choices matter more than ever.

Below are eight bills that would make life harder and more expensive in Connecticut. Our full list can be found here.

SB 84: Weakening the Fiscal Guardrails

The fiscal guardrails are delivering results. Enacted in 2017, after years of budgetary crises and tax increases, they stabilized spending, built a $4.1 billion Rainy Day Fund and made possible the largest income tax cut in state history in 2023.

SB 84 moves in a different direction. The bill introduces structural changes to how surplus funds are used and relies on short-term revenue to fund one-time $200 to $400 tax rebates. While rebates may provide immediate relief, they do not address underlying cost drivers and can reduce fiscal predictability.

More importantly, shifting away from disciplined savings and debt reduction risks leaving the state more vulnerable in the next economic downturn.

HB 5156: Establishing a “Climate Superfund”

HB 5156 would require fossil fuel companies to pay billions for past emissions through a state “Climate Superfund.”

While the concept targets energy producers, the costs are unlikely to stay there. They would move through the supply chain, increasing costs at the pump, and for home heating. Estimates suggest the policy could add roughly 33 cents per gallon to gasoline, diesel, and heating oil — further straining already tight household budgets.

SB 440: Pay for Striking Workers

SB 440 would allow workers who voluntarily go on strike to collect unemployment benefits — a proposal that has already been vetoed twice.

Unemployment insurance was designed to support workers who lose their jobs involuntarily, not to subsidize work stoppages. Expanding eligibility would shift the cost of labor disputes onto employers and the unemployment system, while altering the balance of collective bargaining.

Policies that prolong disputes rather than encourage resolution can create broader economic ripple effects.

SB 101: Statewide Property Tax

SB 101 would establish a statewide property tax on homes valued above $3 million, layered on top of already high local property taxes. Connecticut consistently ranks among the highest in the nation for property tax burden. Adding a new statewide layer raises concerns about competitiveness, investment, and long-term economic growth.

At a time when policymakers are focused on affordability, increasing property taxes moves in the opposite direction.

HB 5133: Income Tax Increase

Another ‘tax the rich’ bill, HB 5133, would increase Connecticut’s top personal income tax rate from 6.99 to 7.99 percent.

While framed as targeting high earners, income tax increases can affect investment decisions, business growth, and where individuals choose to live and work.

Connecticut’s broader challenge is attracting and retaining taxpayers, not increasing the burden on those already here.

SB 104: Capital Gains Surcharge

SB 104 would impose an additional surcharge on capital gains income.

Capital gains are inherently volatile and sensitive to economic conditions. Increasing taxes on this income can discourage investment activity and reduce long-term revenue stability.

States that rely heavily on high-income taxpayers often face greater revenue swings, particularly during downturns.

HB 5003: Eroding Local Control in Education

HB 5003 shifts final decision-making authority in certain education matters away from locally elected boards of education and into the hands of an unelected arbitrator.

Local boards exist to provide accountability to parents and taxpayers. Removing that authority reduces local control and distances decision-making from the communities most affected.

HB 5554: Ending Bipartisan Oversight

For more than 50 years, Connecticut’s Regulation Review Committee has been evenly split between parties — ensuring bipartisan review of state agency regulations.

HB 5554 would replace that structure with majority control.

This change would remove a longstanding check on administrative authority and concentrate more power within the majority party, a significant shift in how state regulations are reviewed and approved.

The Bigger Picture

Taken individually, each of these bills raises important questions. Taken together, they point to a broader trend: expanding costs, increasing mandates, and shifting away from policies that promote stability and affordability.

Connecticut’s challenges are well known. The solutions, however, depend on policy choices.

The question facing lawmakers is simple: will these policies make the state more affordable, more competitive, and more predictable — or less?

The answer will shape Connecticut’s future.

*This article was originally published by Yankee Institute

With Revolution Wind, a multi-state offshore wind farm project, now online, Connecticut has taken another step toward expanding its renewable energy infrastructure. Once fully operational, the project — touted by Gov. Ned Lamont as “key” to “lowering utility costs for families and businesses” — is expected to deliver power to 350,000 homes, or nearly 2.5% of the region’s electricity supply.

The goal of reducing emissions is laudable. But the larger question is whether Connecticut’s current path will deliver energy that is not only cleaner, but also affordable and reliable.

Right now, that answer is far from clear.

A recent study, Alternatives to New England’s Affordability Crisis, found that a more balanced energy mix — one that includes nuclear and natural gas — could save ratepayers hundreds of billions of dollars while reducing emissions and avoiding reliability risks. In contrast, relying too heavily on intermittent sources like wind and solar risks driving up costs and increasing the likelihood of grid instability.

Today, nuclear and natural gas account for 61% of energy to the region’s grid, ISO New England. If bolstered, the region could meet its projected 2050 energy needs while saving more than $600 billion, compared to a renewables-only approach — all while cutting emissions by up to 50%.

That matters in a state where residents already face some of the highest energy costs in the country.

Nuclear: Clean, Reliable, and Underutilized

Public perception of nuclear energy has shifted significantly in recent years. While past incidents like Three Mile Island and Fukushima shaped earlier skepticism, today a majority of Americans support expanding nuclear power.

And for good reason.

Experts have increasingly pointed to nuclear as a critical tool for reducing emissions. In 2018, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes emphasized in Yale Environment 360 that nuclear energy is not only necessary to combat climate change, but also safer than other major industries.

The U.S. Department of Energy considers nuclear one of the most reliable electricity sources, producing carbon-free power around the clock. Nationwide, nuclear energy avoids more than 430 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually — equivalent to removing 95 million cars from the road.

In Connecticut, the Millstone Power Station alone supplies a substantial share of the region’s electricity and powers two million homes.

Yet despite its reliability and environmental benefits, Connecticut still prohibits the development of new advanced nuclear facilities — limiting one of the most promising tools available for both affordability and emissions reduction.

Natural Gas: Essential — But Constrained

Natural gas remains another critical piece of the energy equation. Millions of New England residents depend on it, with natural gas fueling nearly half of the region’s electricity generation. It also plays a key role during periods of peak demand — especially in winter, when reliability is most critical.

But access is constrained.

Connecticut relies entirely on three interstate gas pipelines: the Algonquin, Iroquois, and Tennessee. Notably, only 60% of the natural gas “that flows in CT flows back out, to New York and Rhode Island,” meaning the state only uses 40% of the natural gas it imports, according to University of Connecticut professor Fred Carstensen.

So why not expand access?

A November 2025 report from the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research identified several barriers to increasing natural gas transmission, including regulatory hurdles, legal challenges related to land acquisition, public opposition, and difficulty securing sufficient capital.

Federal policy also plays a role with the Jones Act blocking New England’s capacity to import domestically produced natural gas.

Additionally, proposed infrastructure projects such as the Constitution Pipeline — which would have transported natural gas from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale to New England — have been blocked after years of legal and political opposition in New York. If New York approved the pipeline, New Englanders would see immense relief, saving $1 billion in energy costs.

As a result of stalled projects and inaction, supply remains tight, costs remain high, and the region is forced to rely on less efficient — and often more expensive — alternatives.

A Balanced Approach — Not an Either/Or Choice

The launch of Revolution Wind highlights both progress and limitation.

Renewables have a role to play. But they cannot carry the system alone — not without significant cost and reliability tradeoffs.

Connecticut does not need to choose between clean energy and affordable energy.

It can, and should, pursue both.

That means embracing nuclear, natural gas, and renewables working together. It means reducing barriers to reliable energy sources while ensuring long-term sustainability.

And it means recognizing that energy policy is not just about emissions targets; it is about whether families can afford their utility bills and whether businesses can afford to operate here.

The Path Forward

Some solutions, such as expanding pipeline infrastructure, require federal and interstate cooperation. But Connecticut lawmakers still have meaningful choices to make.

Legislation like HB 5336, which would allow the state to explore advanced nuclear energy, is a step in the right direction. So is a broader willingness to reassess policies that prioritize one energy source at the expense of affordability and reliability.

Building new infrastructures takes time. But policy direction matters now. For households struggling with rising costs and businesses looking for relief, the stakes are immediate.

Connecticut has an opportunity to lead in building a more balanced, resilient, and affordable energy system.

That is a future worth striving toward.