From the state budget to drunken driving, the 2024 legislative session that opens Wednesday will have a packed agenda as legislators try to solve the state’s problems in an election year.
The short session, which lasts only until May 8, will prompt lawmakers to scramble to get their bills passed before time expires under dates established by the state constitution.
The most overriding issue facing Gov. Ned Lamont and lawmakers is making adjustments to the $26 billion annual state budget for the fiscal year that starts in July. Liberal lawmakers say that the state’s fiscal guardrails that include spending and bonding caps have prevented the state from fully funding various social programs, but Lamont and Republicans say the legislature must keep its promise that was lengthened last year as they voted unanimously in both chambers to extend the guardrails for another five years.
After years of major budget problems and tax increases, lawmakers have been surprised by the robust fiscal turnaround in recent years that included paying down $7.7 billion in the long-neglected pension funds for state employees and public school teachers.
Lamont, who holds veto power to block legislative moves, sees no reason to change the guardrails.
“I think it’s working,” Lamont said when asked by the Courant. “You’re going to find in this budget we’re making historic increases, historic investments in our social programs. More importantly, we’ve been able to do that on a consistent basis over the last five, now-to-be six years. Compare that to the herky-jerky budgeting before we had those guardrails. I like to stick with what’s working.”
John Kissel, the longest-serving Republican senator who has been in office since 1993, agrees with Lamont that the state needs to keep paying billions toward pension debts.
“We can always use money elsewhere, but those huge obligations are a millstone around our neck. They have to be paid down,” Kissel said in an interview. “The best thing that the state could do is stay the course with the guardrails and maintain our good credit rating with Wall Street. … It’s not glamorous, but it’s good fiscal policy. Paying off your bills is never a lot of fun, but you’ve got to do it.”
Kissel cited an often-quoted statement by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s budget director, Ben Barnes, in November 2014 that Connecticut was in “a period of permanent fiscal crisis.” Barnes has since said that he had been referring to a book title and regretted the quote.
“We’re not in that fiscal state anymore — so that was an incorrect assumption,” Kissel said. “The guardrails solved that issue for us.”
But House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford, a highly influential player as the top Democrat in the House, said there is room for compromise. His caucus is seeking an additional $300 million to $400 million for spending priorities like higher education, homelessness and nonprofit organizations that provide critical state services.
“Going into my 14th legislative session, what I’ve begun to learn is there are two extremes that you’ll read about,” Ritter told the Courant. “The first extreme is the guardrails are a straitjacket. The other extreme is that you have to adhere to them 110% or the state will be in bad financial condition again. As always, the answer is in the middle. The guardrails have been very successful. … Inevitably, you’re going to need a rainy day fund at some point, and when you don’t have one, you end up cutting services and reducing spending for the same people who want more.”
Ritter added, “I think my role this session is to try to find ways that we can adhere to the guardrails and continue to pay down our pension liabilities, but also not ignore and certainly try to help in those areas where there is a need for more general fund appropriations. Do I think we can do both? Yes. The reason I think that is we’ve been able to do both for the last five or six years, and we’re going to have to do it again.”
Spending cap
Lamont’s budget chief, longtime state employee Jeffrey Beckham, said lawmakers must be cautious about pending at a pace that is faster than taxpayers can handle. The spending cap establishes the highest possible increase in annual state spending — a number that is determined by the higher of the inflation rate or growth in personal income. For the 2025 fiscal year, spending will increase by about 4%.
“This is an important point,” Beckham emphasized to reporters. “The latest information we have is that it’s a 3.96% increase, which is slightly ahead of inflation now, which is a good place to be. You want your personal income growing faster than inflation. The spending cap will therefore be based on growth in personal income, which is a good thing. … If you’re advocating going beyond the spending cap, you’re literally advocating that we spend money faster than our taxpayers can make it. Their growth in personal income went up 3.96%. That’s what our spending cap number for 2025 will be. If you go above that, you’re saying let’s spend money even faster than our taxpayers are making it.”
But state Rep. Anne Hughes of Easton, one of the legislature’s most liberal members, said the state has urgent needs for spending and cannot allow the guardrails to become a straitjacket.
“Flexibility,” Hughes said in an interview. “We have an early child care educator crisis, a workforce crisis. Even if people have slots for Care4Kids, they can’t find providers. I think we need to dedicate some of the spending to urgent needs. I’m so happy [Lamont] is willing to extend universal school breakfasts across the state, but we’re pushing for universal school meals.”
The legislature, she said, cannot become overly focused on paying down the pension debts after neglecting the funds for decades by simply not setting aside enough money.
“It’s like saying, ‘Hey, kids, we didn’t pay the mortgage for 70 years, so now we need to do that first. I’m sorry you’re hungry, but you’re going to have to wait,’ ” Hughes said. “But the good news is in 20 or 30 years, so much of your taxes isn’t going to go to the debt. That’s small comfort for the people that are in urgent, desperate need right now.”
Fees to be eliminated
In an effort to help workers, Lamont is proposing to eliminate the initial application fees for workers who need licenses in child care, education and health care.
He traveled to the University of Hartford in West Hartford recently to make the announcement, saying that the elimination would help new workers in those key fields.
“It’s not a lot, but it’s a little,” Lamont told reporters as nursing students stood behind him at the university’s simulation center.
Lamont’s plan calls for eliminating the initial application fee for registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and advanced practice registered nurses, which range from $150 to $200 each and would save them a combined $2.5 million statewide.
The initial fee for educators of $200 would be eliminated, costing the state about $1 million annually. The $40 fee for home child care licenses would also be dropped if approved by the legislature.
But Norma Martinez-HoSang, director of a statewide liberal advocacy coalition known as Connecticut For All, said the proposal was not enough.
“Yet again, Gov. Lamont’s drop-in-the-bucket strategy is failing to address the true crisis facing Connecticut residents,” she said. “If he is serious about helping to ‘encourage those who are seeking employment to consider entering a career in these sectors’, then he must move bold policy that reaches the root cause of this employment crisis. At the heart of this issue is a higher education system that is woefully underfunded with over $200 million in deficit even after tuition and fee increases on students. Eliminating fees is a tiny step in the right direction, but once again Gov. Lamont is failing to meet the moment.”
Aid in Dying
One of the longest-running issues at the state Capitol is aid in dying, which was commonly known for decades as physician-assisted suicide.
The issue dates back at least 30 years to 1994 when Democratic Sen. George Jepsen held a public hearing as co-chairman of the judiciary committee, and very few of the current lawmakers were serving in the General Assembly.
Since then, the measure has failed at least 15 times in the legislature, but it comes back nearly every year at the committee level.
Despite his support for the issue and his influential position at the Capitol, Ritter said he cannot singlehandedly make it happen because it is a difficult issue of conscience.
“I support the legislation,” Ritter said in an interview. “I have had advocates call me and say: ‘Why won’t you make it pass?’ Me, personally. My response is this is not my leadership style. Number two, this is a very personal vote for people. Depending on your life experiences, how you were raised, maybe potentially on your beliefs. It’s all over the map. There are Republicans in favor. There are Democrats opposed.”
Reducing fatal car crashes
With total fatalities breaking records in 2022, legislators are hoping to find ways to reduce car crashes that lead to the deaths of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the street.
One of those options is reducing the blood-alcohol level for arrest to .05, down from the current federal standard of .08 that Connecticut and surrounding states have enacted. Only Utah currently imposes the .05 standard, but lawmakers say a lower number would deter some drivers from getting behind the wheel after drinking.
The measure is part of a broader plan to reduce fatalities on Connecticut roads. Legislators were stunned at 366 deaths on the roads in 2022 — about one per day. The statistics show that 2022 was the worst year on Connecticut roads since 1989. While fatalities dipped to 323 last year, the accidents are continuing this year.
During the first 22 days of January, 17 people died in accidents on Connecticut roads, according to the latest statistics released by the state Department of Transportation.
In an attempt to reduce crashes, the committee voted last year to lower the blood alcohol level for arrest to .05. The measure passed by 21-15 with Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the bipartisan issue. The bill, however, never passed in the state House of Representatives and Senate before time expired.
As a result, the issue will be back again this year.
While other issues always pop up, the budget will be the overriding issue that takes plenty of time and energy for legislators.
The $26 billion budget for the fiscal year that starts on July 1 is already in balance. Even without any changes by the legislature in the coming months, the state’s finances would still be in the black.
“Compare that to some of our neighbors. I’ll take that,” Lamont said, referring to deficits in other states.
On Wall Street, the S&P 500 index and the Dow Jones Industrial Average both hit record highs Friday, which traditionally translates into larger surpluses for the state budget due to capital gains taxes paid chiefly by Fairfield County millionaires and billionaires. Overall, the top 2% of the wealthiest taxpayers pay 40% of all Connecticut income taxes, according to state statistics. At the other end, the bottom 54% pay only 4% of the bill.
Lamont, though, cautions that the Wall Street gains will not last forever, and state officials need to keep a close eye on the budget that will be crafted and molded in the coming months.
“It’s the second inning of the ballgame,” Lamont said, “and we’ve got a few innings to go. But I feel we’ve got a very good budget for [fiscal year] 2024. We’ve got a very good budget for 2025. We’re going to make some adjustments for 2025 to really focus on some initiatives that are really important to me and some of the key legislative committees, but we’re keeping within those guardrails.”
Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com
