The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT)
The General Assembly’s last-minute maneuvering
As I have written recently, our Connecticut General Assembly has a nasty legislative habit of debating and voting on budgetary matters behind the scenes and at the very end of a legislative session. This session lawmakers were jockeying with Gov. Ned Lamont over expanding budgetary controls or fiscal guardrails for education and social services expenses.
Common wisdom would suggest that with a super-majority Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor — also known as unified government — officials should be on the same page about policymaking. But this session hardly proved the case as legislative committee chairs, Lamont and his budgetary leaders disputed final 2025 fiscal year numbers.
Even more interesting was Lamont’s initial response to resolve funding for higher education and state-sponsored social services. At first, he and his officials were against any budgetary gimmicks, and then Appropriation Committee co-chairs Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, and Rep. Toni Walker, D-New Haven, pressed to find budgetary alternatives. Lamont finally came out with not being “an absolutist on this,” when interviewed by the Connecticut Mirror last month.
Just because officials are in the same political party doesn’t lead to agreement on everything. The Democratic Party is hardly united, even in “blue” Connecticut. It’s prone to being fractious with urban, suburban and rural constituents. Legislative and executive officials also have ideological differences. It’s also no secret that Lamont is a centrist while General Assembly Democrats range from conservative to progressive.
Ultimately, some of the internal party disputes led to finding new legislative tactics. No surprise then that Lamont and his officials worked with Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney, D-New Haven, and House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford. The fiscal cap workaround involved reallocating hundreds of millions of federal dollars through unspent funds from the American Rescue Plan Act.
Similar to previous fiscal policymaking, this ARPA legislative maneuvering was decided at the last minute and even Republican state lawmakers received the proposal early Monday morning for review in a matter of hours. Maneuvering pandemic federal funds would not reopen the budget or adjusted the budgetary guardrails, as the plan carries forward the funds from a prior year and not against the fiscal cap.
The budget stabilization bill directs $370 million for the University of Connecticut, the Connecticut State University system, nonprofit service providers and children related healthcare programs. Like similar budgetary proposals, there’s additional municipal aid for specific cities and projects.
I’m not surprised at the laundry list of projects, as legislative bodies are notorious for offering district-related spending in an election year. But the fact that social services and education funding remain a last-minute maneuvering tactic should be most concerning.
The bigger question will be, what happens next year? This most recent down-to-the-wire approach is only short term and based on federal sources. Since we base our state budget in twoyear or biennial cycles, our lawmakers and governor need to consider sustainable budgetary considerations rather than in the final days of a legislative session.
We should expect long-term strategies from our legislative and executive officials, particularly when it comes to education and social services. With inflation and education costs rising — including recent and future tuition hikes — Connecticut residents deserve to know what our officials’ plans are rather than deciding last-minute solutions.
Constituents should be alert to General Assembly tactics and their longterm spending on social services and education budgeting. Temporary approaches hardly address our state’s future when it comes to helping Connecticut’s youngest generations. If we are to grow and advance as a state, investing in our future is critical. But short-term strategies in these policy areas limit Connecticut’s ability to thrive.