Connecticut state government's mad dash to the far left produced another ridiculous moment last week when, as the Connecticut Mirror reported, "with no explanation and scant debate" the state House of Representatives approved a bill to establish what essentially would be a slush fund at the disposal of state Comptroller Sean Scanlon. The bill would put $3 million in an account to be used by the comptroller for "assisting low-income workers."

Which workers exactly? How would "low-income" be defined? What would prevent the money from being used for political patronage? How could such a vague undertaking be considered superior to all the specified unmet financial needs lately competing at the state Capitol?

Discussion about the legislation in the House provided no explanation.

But later the Mirror got House Speaker Matt Ritter to admit that the $3 million appropriation was meant as a compromise between the Connecticut AFL-CIO and Gov. Ned Lamont over the labor federation's desire for state government to start providing unemployment compensation for workers who strike. The money is meant to start subsidizing strikes.

Lamont has gone along with Big Labor on other issues, like generous raises for state government employees and requiring nearly all businesses to provide paid sick leave to employees, but he seems to realize that Connecticut is already perceived as unfriendly to business and that awarding unemployment compensation to strikers would make the state openly hostile.

Given its reliance on military contracting done by large manufacturers with unionized workforces, Connecticut should be especially wary of awarding unemployment compensation to strikers. Subsidizing strikes against military contractors could impair national security and discourage the Defense Department from relying on Connecticut manufacturers.

Awarding unemployment compensation to strikers also could cause more expense for state government itself, insofar as nursing homes are major state government contractors for the care of the infirm and nursing home employees are generally low-paid and increasingly unionized and inclined to strike.

Unemployment compensation for strikers deserves a full debate in the General Assembly and accountability from legislators. The House bill is meant precisely to prevent that. Creating a slush fund on the assumption that the comptroller will use it responsibly when the bill provides no rules signifies still more contempt for the legislative process. Presumably the comptroller will be able to use the slush fund as political patronage, to benefit only those strikers whose unions are close to the state's majority political party, the Democrats, or to bestow the money on other organizations that purport to serve low-income workers and have Democratic connections.

Surprisingly the Republican minority in the House, which, while small, has some power in a legislative session's last days — the ability to talk a bill to death — did not object to the slush-fund legislation.

Maybe the Republicans figured that letting the $3 million be spent as Democratic patronage is a small price to pay to help divert the comprehensive legislation Big Labor sought for unemployment compensation for strikers. But even such a strategic calculation would have been complicit with the attempt to keep the public ignorant of what was really going on with the bill.

If the legislation passes the Senate the governor should veto it and recommend that legislators try addressing the momentous issue forthrightly and with integrity, not with deception, slush funding, patronage and contempt for the public.

Open juvenile records

Accountability also was overlooked by the House two weeks ago when it passed legislation granting officials of other states access to Connecticut's criminal records of juveniles who seek to buy guns in other states.

There is nothing wrong with the legislation — a new federal law compels it — but it raises the question of why the criminal records of juveniles ordinarily remain concealed in Connecticut in the first place.

Connecticut lately has seen that its juvenile offenders increasingly have contempt for the criminal justice system, since it refuses to punish them despite repeat offenses. Concealing criminal records of juveniles also exempts the system and parents from accountability for their many costly failures. The records should be opened to the public to increase deterrence and accountability.

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. He can be reached at CPowell@cox.net.