logo
Failing to reach a deal, CT Dems consider passing one-year budget; Lamont calls it ‘a mistake'

Failing to reach a deal, CT Dems consider passing one-year budget; Lamont calls it ‘a mistake'

Yahooa day ago

For decades, state legislators have passed two-year budgets in order to avoid haphazard, seat-of-the-pants, one-year changes.
But failing this week to agree on a spending plan, some Democrats are suddenly considering switching to a one-year budget. They are racing to craft their plan with only one week left before the current legislative session adjourns on June 4, but Gov. Ned Lamont has raised strong objections to breaking the long tradition of two-year budgets that are designed to force lawmakers to look ahead at the state's fiscal outlook.
House Speaker Matt Ritter, a Hartford Democrat, said lawmakers are running out of options as they round up the necessary votes for the $27 billion state budget for the new fiscal year that starts on July 1.
'As a legislature, the worst and most dangerous thing you can do is leave without a budget of some kind,' Ritter told reporters Wednesday. 'Your leverage is gone. Members are away. It gets hard to find the [dates for] special sessions. The days turn into weeks, and you get to July 1, and your municipalities and your nonprofits and others are at the whim of whatever the governor's office wants to do. … Every day that goes by, the power accumulates in the executive branch.'
The immediate problem, Ritter says, is that both the legislature and the governor failed this year to set aside money for a recently settled three-year contract for unionized nursing home workers in the District 1199 union who had threatened to go on strike. While all sides knew that the contracts remained unsettled, they never set aside $140 million to pay the workers for the second year of the two-year budget. As such, the second year would not be balanced.
'A one-year budget … is very much in play,' said Ritter, who has served in the legislature for 15 years. 'That might be the best option. Our first-year budget is under the [spending] cap. It is in balance. The governor has blessed year one. The disagreement is year two.'
The situation is further complicated by the so-called guardrails and the state's spending cap. Changing the so-called volatility cap to allow more spending requires a three-fifths vote, which is 91 votes in the 151-member House. Democrats hold the majority over Republicans by 102 to 49.
'This is the first time in my experience that you need 91 votes to pass the budget, to raise the volatility threshold,' Ritter said.
But Lamont summoned reporters to his office Wednesday afternoon to denounce Ritter's idea, saying that there is still time in the final week to reach a deal on a two-year, $55.5 billion budget. The clash, he said, is not generally over cuts but instead on the size of the projected increases.
'I just think we should sit down and try it again rather than run out and say, 'I give up and let's do a one-year budget,' ' Lamont told reporters, saying he is willing to work through the weekend to reach a deal. 'There are no cuts. We're arguing about how much we increase funding.'
While he did not include the nursing home money in his budget proposal in early February, Lamont said it was later added in because there were reductions, known as 'lapses,' in other accounts throughout the budget.
Asked by a reporter if he would veto a one-year budget, Lamont responded, 'I'm inclined to do that.'
Lamont had earlier described the Democratic one-year idea as 'a mistake.' When told of Lamont's objections, Ritter said, 'The executive branch wants a biennium budget, and they want it kind of on their terms. That's typical of a governor. … It's not what the legislature wants to do.'
If lawmakers pass a one-year spending plan, they could return to the Capitol in Hartford in September to plug any holes left by expected cuts from President Trump's administration as the federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.
While Ritter mentioned that a one-year budget had not been enacted in Connecticut since 1979 or 1980, multiple insiders said that the two-year budget tradition started as a major financial reform after the state income tax was enacted under Gov. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. in 1991.
Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield said Lamont needs to push back even harder against his fellow Democrats.
'It's more than a 'mistake', governor,' Harding said. 'It's a dereliction of duty. Unfortunately, Gov. Lamont has already folded like a lawn chair to his fellow Democrats after agreeing to blow by the once-'sacrosanct' state spending cap last week. Why wouldn't Democrats assume you will again fold like a lawn chair on this issue as well?'
Harding added, 'Gov. Lamont: There is less than a week left in the legislative session. We have no budget. No tax cuts. No spending cap. We have passed nothing to lower energy costs. Get your mojo back, Gov. Lamont. You are being pushed around by majority Democrats. Threaten some vetoes. Stop showing weakness and do something.'
State Rep. Tammy Nuccio, the ranking House Republican on the budget committee, told The Courant that she is stunned that the Democrats are having trouble passing a two-year budget when they have super-majorities in both chambers of the legislature and flush fiscal coffers from constant budget surpluses in recent years.
'I think it's a farce,' Nuccio of the one-year plan.
She added, 'The priority right now should be protecting Medicaid. It should be, in my opinion, electric rates. It should be sustainability over the two years. We obviously have issues for overtime' in prisons and the state police.
Nuccio and fellow Republicans say the state could save $116 million over two years by eliminating health care for undocumented immigrants, but some Democrats have said that coverage is a key priority.
With a full week left until adjournment, the legislature is known for acting quickly when necessary and cutting deals at the last minute as they race toward midnight on June 4.
Ritter said that House Democrats have not issued any take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums and are open to negotiations.
'It's not our final offer,' Ritter said.
He added that House Democrats are not giving up or caving in.
'The legislative branch is not back-up singers. It is a co-equal branch of government. And it's not going to just bend a knee because somebody says on a sheet of paper, just make these cuts and we're going to go home. There are opinions in there, passionate opinions in there. And we have the tough job of threading that needle, and the needle right now, I believe, is a one-year budget.'
Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SMU researcher says proposed Tarrant County redistricting 'diminishes' voting power
SMU researcher says proposed Tarrant County redistricting 'diminishes' voting power

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

SMU researcher says proposed Tarrant County redistricting 'diminishes' voting power

The Brief Tarrant County commissioners are set to vote on new district maps within days, a process led by Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare. Critics say the proposed maps violate racial protections in the Voting Rights Act by concentrating non-White voters into one district, diluting their voting power. An SMU researcher's analysis appears to suggest the new maps may be biased against non-White voters. TARRANT COUNTY, Texas - The Republican-led Tarrant County Commissioners Court is days away from voting to redraw district lines. Critics say the proposed maps violate racial protections in the Voting Rights Act. Now, an SMU researcher is applying her own mathematical review to the maps. The Latest SMU mathematics professor and researcher Dr. Andrea Barreiro has dissected and analyzed the newly proposed maps for Tarrant County districts, the work of a county-hired consulting firm and the public legal interest foundation. The researcher uses mathematics and technology to analyze the redistricting models. She says she was drawn to Tarrant County's current process as attention surrounding the topic began to grow. Barreiro looks for signatures of partisan and racial gerrymandering, she says. The current process to redraw the county's lines is led by Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare. At the center of the controversy are District 1, held by Commissioner Roderick Miles, and District 2, a seat now held by Commissioner Alisa Simmons, both Democrats. What they're saying "It looks like they made small modifications on this basic template where they swap the purple and the blue to get their desired outcome," Barreiro said. Barreiro says a randomly unbiased generated map based on the latest census data would have 60 to 65 percent non-White voters in each of those districts. "The proposed maps do something very different," Barreiro said. "They take a lot of those non-White voters in District 2, and they pack them into District 1, leaving District 2 to be majority White." Barreiro uses advanced software, applying a method known as Markov Chain Analysis. Her experience using the same technology includes similar analysis her team prepared during the state legislative redistricting cycle. "We have continued to reach out to Judge O'Hare for his response to allegations of racial gerrymandering by Simmons, Miles, as well as U.S. Congressman Marc Veasey and ten Tarrant County mayors," Barreiro said. Barreiro stops short of making a legal opinion on whether the proposed maps violate state and federal law. She does say it is clear what the consultant map-maker's mission is. "If black voters could be a large presence in two districts, but instead you pack all those people by picking your map cleverly, you get all those people into one district, then you diminish the voting power of that population," Barreiro said. "There are interesting methodological and mathematical questions about this whole process that I'm eager to explore, and I'm also just interested in basic fairness." What's next Late Thursday afternoon, O'Hare agreed to an interview with FOX 4. The meeting is set for Friday morning. A vote on Tarrant County's redistricting process is set for Tuesday. The backstory The mayors of 10 Tarrant County cities, including Fort Worth, Arlington, Mansfield, and Grand Prairie, have signed a letter expressing their opposition to the proposed map. The group called the effort ill-timed because it's the middle of the decade and, in their opinion, the census data from 2020 is outdated. In early April, the commission voted three to two, with commissioners Alisa Simmons and Roderick Miles opposing, to approve a contract with the Public Interest Legal Foundation to provide consultation with re-drawing district lines. The Source Information in this article came from SMU researcher Dr. Andrea Barreiro and previous FOX 4 reporting.

Illinois bill pushes for safe gun storage
Illinois bill pushes for safe gun storage

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Illinois bill pushes for safe gun storage

Illinois lawmakers have passed a bill that could create more requirements for safe gun storage. The Safe Gun Storage Act (SB0008) would require guns to be kept in a secure locked container so a minor, an at-risk person or someone who is not allowed to have a gun can't get to them. Illinois state police would also be able to revoke firearm owners' identification cards if a person doesn't report a lost or stolen gun within 48 hours two or more times. House Republicans argue the bill is unconstitutional and will challenge it in court. The bill passed the House 69-40 and passed the Senate in April. The bill now only needs the governor's signature to become law. For more information, click here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Oregon AG leading tariff battle: Court stays don't change legal merits
Oregon AG leading tariff battle: Court stays don't change legal merits

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Oregon AG leading tariff battle: Court stays don't change legal merits

(NewsNation) — Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who is leading a multistate lawsuit against President Donald Trump's tariffs, said Thursday federal appeals court stays don't alter the fundamental legal problems with the administration's use of emergency powers to impose trade duties. 'You've had four judges in the United States that have ruled that the president has misused his emergency powers, and one of these judges was even appointed by Trump,' Rayfield, a Democrat, told 'The Hill on NewsNation.' 'A stay is just that, it periodically pauses the given action so that the appellate court can consider the merits of the case. This isn't a ruling on the merits.' The Oregon attorney general's comments followed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's temporary lifting of a lower court's block on some Trump tariffs, although a separate Washington, D.C., ruling keeping other tariffs on hold remains in effect. Harvard, Trump court battle — and polarizing debate — continue Rayfield argued that Trump violated constitutional principles by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act instead of traditional tariff authorities under Title 19, which previous presidents have used. He said the emergency powers law lacks the safeguards and time limits that Congress built into standard trade remedy statutes. 'The Constitution gives Congress the power to set tariffs. That isn't an inherent presidential power,' Rayfield said. 'Every single president has used Title 19 laws. He used an emergency power. No president has ever used that power, and that's why he got struck down.' 'He's trying to do this in a backwards way and find a loophole,' Rayfield told NewsNation. The attorney general warned that Trump's tariffs would cost Oregon households an average of $3,800 annually and have already reduced state revenue by more than $700 million, affecting funding for schools and health care. He cited instances of Canadian products being pulled from shelves at Oregon businesses due to trade uncertainty. State Department scrutiny adds hurdles for international students White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has defended the tariffs as being within the president's authority, saying judges who blocked them 'brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump.' However, Rayfield noted that the three-judge panel that initially blocked the tariffs included appointees from the Reagan, Obama and Trump administrations. When asked whether tariffs could help Oregon's rising unemployment rate, which has outpaced the national average since June 2023, Rayfield dismissed the possibility. He said the economic disruption from trade disputes was harming rather than helping job creation in his state. 'The real facts here are that this is incredibly harmful to all of us,' Rayfield said. 'I would love people to just ask their neighbors: Can you afford another $3,800 a year?' The legal challenges are working their way through multiple courts, with briefing schedules extending into June as appeals courts consider whether to extend the temporary stays or allow the lower court blocks to take effect. The White House says the Supreme Court will likely need to step in. NewsNation partner The Hill contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store