From left, Rep. Livvy Floren, Rep, Vincent Candelora, and GOP staffer Pat O'Neil review documents as budget debate continues. mark pazniokas /
With a graphic, House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz and House Majority Leader Matt Ritter make a point about the GOP offering no budget alternative. mark pazniokas /

The House of Representatives approved a new state budget late Monday that averts a major projected deficit without increasing income tax rates, but does shift billions of dollars in pension debt onto the next generation of taxpayers.

Despite the potential for a $3 billion-plus deficit unless adjustments were made, legislators and the new governor made new investments in health care, bolstered local education aid significantly while sparing cities and towns from having to help cover municipal teacher pension costs.

The Democrat-controlled chamber voted 86-65 to send the package to the Senate, which is expected to approve it Tuesday.

The $43.4 billion, two-year plan avoids an income tax hike on the rich the new governor opposed, but establishes a much smaller “mansion tax” surcharge on the sale of expensive homes. The budget also asks more from small businesses and defers the first stage of property tax relief Lamont pledged on the campaign trail.

It broadens the sales tax, imposes a higher rate on digital downloads, adds new levies on e-cigarettes and plastic bags, increases the alcoholic beverage tax, and adds a nickel to bus fares.

Though state employees rebuffed Lamont’s request to set new limits on retirees’ pensions, the budget does assume $455 million in other labor savings over two years.

The package does not include tolls, but it does divert funds originally pledged for transportation, keeping them in the General Fund.

The budget settles a longstanding dispute between the state and its hospital industry and provides assistance to homeowners struggling with crumbling foundations.

And it leaves Connecticut with a $2 billion emergency budget reserve, the largest in state history — and with the potential to grow it further over the next two years.

Rep. Toni E. Walker, D-New Haven, co-chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee

“This budget invests,” House Majority Leader Matt Ritter, D-Hartford said citing more funds for education, health care, municipalities and job development — despite the challenges of a multi-billion-dollar deficit forecast and a spending cap. 

“We found a way to invest in our nursing homes,” Ritter said. “I imagine every single town who put their budget together is doing better.”

“All in all this is a good budget,” said Rep. Toni E. Walker, D-New Haven, longtime co-chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, who said many years of lean budgets following the last recession took a heavy toll on the priorities Ritter had cited. “The thing we worked hard at is to try to put things back together.”

“We’re really proud of the document that came out,” House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, said a few hours before the debate began. “It’s coming out on time, balanced, and makes investments in our municipalities through education, workforce development.”

But House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby, said the package followed a similar formula Democrat-controlled legislatures have employed for years. 

“Today I’m really sad about this,” she said. “We’re borrowing more. We’re taxing more and we’re spending more. How many years have we been doing that?”

Klarides added that the budget only would drive more taxpayers to move elsewhere. “The state of Connecticut deserves better,” she said.  “There’s not going to be people to legislate for in the very near future.”

And Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, did not mince words in his counter-assessment before Monday’s debate.

“I find this budget to be really disgusting,” he said, calling it a “hodge-podge” of taxes and new policies “with no future, no plan.” Neither House nor Senate Republicans proposed an alternative budget this year.

Tax hikes don’t always require a rate increase

House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby

Lamont spent considerable political capital resisting any increase in income tax rates, which had been increased in 2009, 2011 and 2015. And he turned up the pressure when the Finance Committee proposed an income tax surcharge on capital gains by the wealthy.

The governor called any income tax hike aimed at the rich a “a really bad idea” and said he fears it would prompt many to leave Connecticut.

But there are tax hikes in the compromise budget.

The plan raises about $340 million in the first year and $315 million in the second year by increasing tax and fee increases and by canceling previously approved tax cuts that haven’t taken effect yet. This doesn’t include $1 billion in relief for hospitals that is likely be resolved in special session this summer.

Consumers pick up a heavy share of that burden.

The sales tax on digital downloads rises from 1 percent to the standard 6.35 percent rate. Sales tax exemptions on parking, dry cleaning, interior design services and safety apparel are eliminated and a 1 percent surcharge on restaurant food and other prepared meals is added.

Grocery store and other retail shoppers will pay a new 10-cents-per-bag tax on plastic bags. This will raise about $27 million per year for the state.

Lamont’s proposal for a tax on sugary beverages was dropped, but lawmakers did impose a new tax on vaping products containing nicotine.

The alcoholic beverages excise tax will rise 10 percent, drawing $4.4 million from consumers over the coming biennium. The budget does cut the excise tax on craft brewery beer in half, saving patrons of that product $200,000 over the next two years.

When it comes to the income tax, the proposed capital gains surcharge — which was estimated to raise $262 million per year from wealthy residents — would have been the single largest tax hike, had it not been scrapped.

But there were other income tax increases in the budget.

Owners of limited liability corporations and other small and mid-sized businesses that don’t pay the state corporation tax will pay an extra $50 million per year due to the reduction of an income tax credit.

In addition, previously approved income tax cuts for retired teachers and college graduates with student loan debt — which involved new or expanded income tax credits — would be repealed before they could take effect.

Deferring a campaign pledge

The governor also agreed to defer one of his main campaign promises — expanding the largest income tax credit, one that helps low- and middle-income families cover local property taxes.

Households without children lost access to that credit, which provides up to $200 per filer with relief.

Lamont pledged last fall to restore eligibility to that group, and the $53 million in cumulative annual relief it lost, in the second year of his first two-year budget. But eligibility was not restored.

“The governor’s top campaign promise and administration focus was achieving an honestly balanced budget, passed on time,” said Lamont spokesman Rob Blanchard. “… Doing so meant closing a $3.7 billion deficit without significant cuts or tax rate increases” and increasing education aid to cities and towns.

“The governor looks forward to working with legislative colleagues in the next biennium to explore potential opportunities to lower the property tax credit and continue to support Connecticut’s working families” Blanchard added.

The new budget would wave real estate conveyance taxes on homeowners in eastern Connecticut who are struggling to sell their houses because of crumbling foundations.

A new “mansion tax” surcharge also was added to the real estate conveyance levy for the sale of houses valued at more than $2.5 million. This would raise $6.3 million annually starting in 2021.

Business taxes are a mixed bag

Lamont kept his campaign pledge to eliminate the business entity tax, a $250 fee on all companies every two years. This would save businesses $44 million starting in 2021.

But also two years from now, limited liability partnerships and limited liability corporations will pay $12 million in increased filing fees.

And the new budget cancels a previously approved plan to eliminate a surcharge on the corporation tax. 

This, plus other restrictions on business tax credits, will cost companies $147 million over the next two fiscal years combined.

Rep. Chris Davis, R-Ellington Keith M. Phaneuf / file photo

Rep. Chris Davis of Ellington, ranking House Republican on the Finance Committee, called the tax hikes an attack on the middle class.

“If you want to raise taxes for small business owners, for employers, if you want to raise their income taxes here is your chance, through this budget,” Davis said. “If you want to make it harder for them to operate in this state, if you want to make it harder for them to hire new people, this is your opportunity, because that’s what this budget does. … It squeezes the middle class, more and more and more, by extending the sales tax onto a number of products and services that middle-class people pay every day.”

The new budget also directs the Department of Revenue Services to conduct a study of establishing a payroll tax to potentially replace the state income tax.

New York state established a voluntary program that allows employers to pay a tax on salaries and wages

Investing in education and health care

Lawmakers committed in the current budget to maintain a 10-year program to increase Education Cost Sharing grants to cities and towns. Those would rise by $116 million over the next two fiscal years combined.

Lamont’s proposal to ask communities to contribute $73 million toward teacher pension costs over the biennium was scrapped.

Legislators also balked at the governor’s proposal to place an asset test on the Medicare Savings Program, which uses Medicaid funds to help low- and middle-income seniors cover health care costs Medicare does not.

The budget also increases the HUSKY A Medicaid program for working poor adults with children. Income eligibility limits would rise from 155 percent of the federal poverty level to 160 percent. This would allow about 4,000 more residents to receive health care.

It includes rate increases for nursing homes in each of the next two years. The rate increases were viewed as key to averting strikes at 25 homes where unionized workers have threatened to strike in June.

On paper, the new budget maintains Connecticut’s current system of taxing hospitals and providing supplemental payments back to the industry.

That means hospitals will still pay $900 million per year to the state, about $400 million more than they get back in supplementary payments. Hospitals would have overpaid just $217 million per year under a previously approved tax cut that is suspended in the new budget.

But all of this is expected to change later this summer, provided hospitals — who’ve been suing the state over the provider tax system since 2015 — agreed to a tentative settlement.

Lamont and the Connecticut Hospital Association announced the deal last week.

And though details were limited, administration officials said Connecticut likely would need to appropriate $160 million out of this year’s projected surplus to cover the cost.

Legislators are expected to return in special session later this summer to adopt a modified tax-and-supplemental-payment system for hospitals..

Shifting billions in pension debt onto future taxpayers

One of the chief methods used to reduce spending — in the short-term — involves Connecticut’s cash-starved pension funds for teachers and for state employees.

Payments into the teachers’ pension would actually drop $150 million over the next two years combined, and then rise — but not as sharply as originally planned, until 2032.

Taxpayers between 2033 and 2049 would have to make up billions of dollars in deferred contributions plus interest.

Proponents of the shift said Connecticut’s spiking pension costs are the product of more than seven decades of inadequate savings, and that problem can’t be solved by one generation.

Rep. Gail Lavielle of Wilton, ranking House Republican on the Appropriations Committee.

Rep. Gail Lavielle of Wilton, ranking House Republican on the Appropriations Committee, countered that “there is some attempt to address some pension obligations, but it also is an attempt that in the long run is going to put those obligations on future generations, billions of dollars reaching out until the end of the 2040’s.”

“Was there any attempt to cut spending in this budget?” Lavielle added. “Not that I can tell.”

The governor also proposed a more modest refinancing of contributions into the state employees’ pension. But it comes just two years after Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the 2017 legislature restructured payments into this pension to get budget relief.

The latest refinancing of the state employees’ pension must be approved by worker unions. This has not happened yet although sources say the administration and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition have had discussions.

The budget also assumes the governor and unions can reach agreement on more efficient ways to provide health care benefits to state workers. The projected savings is roughly $130 million over the next two years combined.

Siphoning away dollars earmarked for transportation

Legislators and Lamont could not agree on establishing electronic tolls on Connecticut’s highways.

But they did agree to tap dollars originally earmarked for the budget’s Special Transportation Fund.

The STF covers the debt payments on the $700 million-to-$800 million Connecticut borrows annually — and then combines with about $700 million in federal grants — to pay for highway, bridge and rail line upgrades.

Legislators approved a plan two years ago to dedicate an increasing share of sales tax receipts to the STF in the coming years.

Even given that initiative, Department of Transportation officials have warned that dozens of planned projects could fall into limbo over the next five years unless a new major funding source is established.

The next budget captures most of the additional sales tax receipts earmarked for transportation, $172 million over the next two years combined, and keeps them in the General Fund.

Keith has spent most of his 31 years as a reporter specializing in state government finances, analyzing such topics as income tax equity, waste in government and the complex funding systems behind Connecticut’s transportation and social services networks. He has been the state finances reporter at CT Mirror since it launched in 2010. Prior to joining CT Mirror Keith was State Capitol bureau chief for The Journal Inquirer of Manchester, a reporter for the Day of New London, and a former contributing writer to The New York Times. Keith is a graduate of and a former journalism instructor at the University of Connecticut.

Maya Moore is CT Mirror’s 2019 Emma Bowen Foundation Intern. She is a journalism and political science student at the University of Connecticut and has an interest in topics covering race and social justice. Moore began her undergraduate journalism career as a campus correspondent with UConn’s independent student-led paper, the Daily Campus, and has since interned for the Hartford Courant. Her work has also been published in the Willimantic Chronicle and the university’s premier publication, UConn Today. Moore is a New Britain native and currently resides in Mansfield, where she continues to write for UConn’s communications department.

Join the Conversation


  1. What’s disgusting is the GOP abdicated their responsibilities and accountabilities as legislators in failing to offer viable alternatives. They are projecting their own failures onto the Dems.

    Instead they voted against the minimum wage increase which serves the dignity and well-being of many and against early voting which invites and facilitates broader participation in our democracy. Instead they said: You don’t matter; you don’t count.

      1. Because it’s their state, too?
        Good ideas are contagious. Someone would adopt it…
        Unless getting credit for it is more important than results.

    1. Do you have any idea of the unintended consequences of the $15/hr minimum wage on this economy? Of the unfunded mandate to business and non-profits? To the loss of jobs and acceleration of automation? I didn’t think so.

      1. Do you have stats? I’d really like to know.
        I’ve only heard supposition from people. Seems more complex, after all besides the obvious benefit to families,
        it would mean more income to tax, more spending on businesses,
        (and more sales tax) —
        there are things on the other side, too.
        I would like to see an analysis.

    2. Considering that the Republicans are in the minority, and that the Democrats can pass any legislation without one Republican vote – what would be the point of the Republicans offering an alternative budget? Sorry, but Lamont and the Democrats own this.

  2. And for the record the Dems have NOTHING to be proud of. They kicked the pension liability to the next generation and imposed a bunch of regressive taxes on the working and middle classes.

    Both parties deserve a big F and should be ashamed at the lack of leadership.

    1. This budget does not make our state more competitive for business and economic growth is the only long-term solution for our massive structural problems, namely far too much debt and unsustainable contractual obligations. So that alone should be the end to any debate, if it does not make us more competitive it should be vetod by a strong CEO. But Gov. Lamont has no true power that lies with the legislature who are back to their old ways of more taxes and spending.

      For decades Democrats have been in complete control and driven a financially unsustainable progressive agenda. This agenda failed economically because revenue and spending are never baalnced. Now Democrats continue but with even more regressive taxation – targeting poorer people and future generations. Democrat political ”leaders” assume the future will be bright when in reality it is bleak due to their policies that choke economic growth.

      Democrats will tell you they ”are helping” the people, and Republicans will say but at what cost? When you have $100 Billion (soon to be $127 Billion) in underfunded contractual obligations and a stagnant economy, the answer is very clear. Both political parties illusion of control ends at the boarder.

  3. “the budget does assume $455 million in other labor savings over two years”- LMAO! Is this another “savings” like the imaginary $600 million union employees were going to produce with ideas to cut spending? Every Legislator in Hartford and the Governor should be dragged out the Capitol, tarred and feathered and ridden to the state line on rails for pushing off the day of reckoning on teacher pensions another decade. And teachers should be outraged because the odds are that sooner or later their pension fund goes bust.

  4. “Grocery store and other retail shoppers will pay a new 10-cents-per-bag tax on plastic bags. This will raise about $27 million per year for the state.”

    Ummm….not when all of us who use the bags refuse to pay the 10 cents.

  5. “The next budget captures most of the additional sales tax receipts earmarked for transportation, $172 million over the next two years combined, and keeps them in the General Fund.”

    A preview of what will happen to the toll money

  6. Here’s one of the key sentences in this article: “Though state employees rebuffed Lamont’s request to set new limits on retirees’ pensions, the budget does assume $455 million in other labor savings over two years.”
    As we know, current state agreements include a no layoff agreement and raises are already approved. Unless the unions and current employees decide to be generous, which is unlikely given the absence of tax increases on the rich, the deficit starts at $455 million over the next two years.
    Past budgets have included other undefined savings to be found by the Governor. I wonder if this budget does so, and whether such savings are as likely as the ones for employee compensation.
    The legislature decided to pretend for now that the hospital settlement didn’t happen. That will be rectified during the first deficit session, apparently to be scheduled for this summer.
    Transportation discussions also ended disastrously. Not only is there no new borrowing, but apparently money has been diverted from the fund despite the supposed lockbox. There’s obviously no reason for tolls in 5 years.
    So this budget apparently has put off difficult decisions for later. The session’s major achievement was the various attacks on small businesses, which will have an effect on employment in the future.

  7. I can’t help but think of my state as a ship lost at sea. There is no Captain and no one manning the crow’s nest to navigate where we are headed. Instead, we have a ruling party overseeing the masses huddled below deck. They hand out just enough to keep them at bay (and keep earning their votes). The minority party is locked in solitary confinement and no one is looking out for the long-term best interests of the state.
    Let’s face it – governing in Connecticut in 2019 is not easy. But we should all be ashamed of this budget. As citizens of Connecticut, we have once again failed to elect officials to go to Hartford with the understanding that you can ONLY SPEND WHAT YOU HAVE. This budget proves that we again have elected officials who have chosen to TURN OVER EVERY ROCK, ACCOUNTING TRICK, AND NEW REVENUE SOURCE to FIND THE MONEY that they have ALREADY COMMITTED TO SPEND. This includes going back on commitments made to deal with Pension issues and instead kicks those liabilities to yet another generation all the way out to 2049. Sad.

  8. Wait till UTC pulls up whatever they have left (Aerospace is already in Florida) and with the acquisition of Rockwell Collins don’t be shocked if Cedar Rapids has an influx of former CT employees.

Leave a comment