Lamont has the edge in next CT budget debate
Fiscal conservatives like Gov. Ned Lamont aren’t the only reason Democrats lack the leverage to reform Connecticut’s tax system — even after expanding their sizable majorities in last week’s election.
Democrats also need to reread the fine print Republicans left on the 2017 state budget, a bipartisan deal cobbled together following an unprecedented, nine-month-long battle.
That package created a stringent new spending cap — which only gets tighter in the coming years — as well as a new program to bolster state reserves that also effectively discourages any tax hikes on the rich.
“I’m not going to raise taxes if I don’t have to raise taxes, that’s for darn sure,” Lamont said last week after Democrats won at least 24 out of 36 seats in the Senate and 98 out of 151 seats in the House.
The Senate tally represents the two-thirds standard needed to override a gubernatorial veto, while the House total falls three votes short.
And the governor, who fielded questions about the coming legislative term, said that while he’s convinced any tax hikes would be a mistake, he is ready to find middle ground on any issue.
“If you’ve got a better idea, come,” he said. “You’ve got a place at the table, and I’m all ears.”
The governor, a Greenwich businessman, insists tax hikes on the wealthy would drive Connecticut’s highest taxpayers out of state.
Although he pledged to deliver property tax relief to the middle class during his 2018 campaign, he left it out of his first budget, instead broadening the sales tax and killing a progressive income tax hike on the capital gains of Connecticut’s top earners — frustrating the legislature’s far left.
But while last week’s election results appear to give the bolstered Democratic majority equal footing with the governor next February, when they begin crafting the next state budget, the tie goes to Lamont.
Spending cap clamps down tight
Even a modest, compromise tax hike on the rich to provide more dollars for cities, social services and struggling state colleges likely would lose political steam — once lawmakers realize the money couldn’t get out the door because of the spending cap.
The capped portion of the state budget — areas where spending increases are restricted by law — grew between 1.8% and 3% in each of the past three fiscal years, and available space under the cap is projected to remain very limited in the coming years. Designed to keep spending in line with the growth in personal income statewide, the cap applies to roughly 70% of the overall budget, covering everything but debt payments and programs paid for with federal funds.
Unlike the original cap enacted in 1991 to complement the new state income tax, the 2017 version is more constraining, as it now includes the nearly $2 billion in annual aid to distressed cities and towns.