Alternate budget puts GOP back in the game

Most Connecticut residents probably don’t know Republican lawmakers haven’t bothered to submit a budget proposal for seven years.

Helping craft a budget is, after all, at the top of the list of their job responsibilities.

Back in 2016, frustration with the Democratic dominance under former Gov. Dannel Malloy led Republicans to end what they felt was a fruitless exercise.

“We have done a budget for seven years in a row. And every time we do a budget, we never get in a room. No matter what our budget says or does, they find something they don’t like and they blow it up,” then Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano said at the time.

Another seven years have since passed, mostly under Malloy’s successor, Ned Lamont. Democrats continue to have a stranglehold on the House (98-53 majority) and Senate (24-12), but this year the Republican House members decided to try again.

Compiling an alternate budget requires hundreds of hours of work, so it’s somewhat understandable that part-time GOP lawmakers want to put their time to the best possible use. But this is that way the process should work. The governor presents a budget, and lawmakers from both the majority and minority parties offer alternatives. With so many people in the room (the aforementioned 188, including the governor, not to mention consultants), innovative ideas can come from anyone.

House Republicans showed their cards last during this cycle, but at least it puts them in the game (albeit with only 32 days to go before the scheduled end of the session).

Democrats responded with some criticisms, but sound more open to exchanging ideas then they did during the Malloy era. It helps that the Republicans’ two-year $50.7 billion budget proposes spending more money than Lamont’s $50.5 billion version, but less than the Democrats (currently at $50.9 billion).

Republicans also suggest the same reduction in the tax rate from 5 percent to 4.5 percent as Lamont, while the Democrats pitched trimming it to 4.75 percent. It offers hope that a cut can be achieved without much haggling. And Republicans pitched delivering tax relief immediately, rather than waiting for 2024.

We can support their goals to spend more money on local schools and special education. And while they are bold about suggesting some of the state’s colleges will need to eventually close, they also recommend spending $290 million more for higher education than the governor, and $140 million more than was approved by the Appropriations Committee. There are massive gaps in philosophies regarding the colleges that need to be addressed. It merits a future special session.

The House Republicans are looking in the wrong place, though, to save money. Their big idea is to let open state jobs remain that way. That’s a recipe for failure in any business. At a time when the state is in dire need of more health care providers and mental health support, it would be foolish to leave positions vacant because they are hard to fill. There may be savings to be had, but a blanket policy could leave deep holes in vital departments.

Regardless of the nuances, it’s good to have the House Republicans raises their voices again (hopefully their Senate counterparts will follow suit). There were no benefits when they used those voices only to boo.