CT governor's proposed $55.2B budget includes income tax cut, early childhood development
Gov. Ned Lamont unveiled a $55.2 billion biennial budget Wednesday that would loosen Connecticut's fiscal 'guardrails,' launch a major early childhood development initiative, provide a $50 income tax cut and restructure hospital taxes to secure more federal aid.
Thanks to a controversial maneuver that shifts about $300 million outside of the budget, the governor's proposal falls a razor-thin $1.8 million under the spending cap in the first year and a more comfortable $261 million under the limit in 2026-27.
Lamont's blueprint begins what's anticipated to be a four-month-long debate with lawmakers over Connecticut's fiscal priorities. The General Assembly, which will offer its own budget recommendations in late April, is expected to adopt a compromise plan with the governor in early June.
Here what Lamont's budget proposal would mean for several areas of state funding.
The governor's budget included some increases in general operating grants and special education for K-12 schools — though not as much as educators and advocates were seeking.
And it left the state's higher education institutions, the University of Connecticut and Connecticut State Colleges and Universities, bracing for cutbacks as they would have to absorb the loss of more than $200 million in expiring federal pandemic funding that legislators have used to keep them afloat since 2021.
Without that federal aid, both UConn and CSCU officials will be forced to draw down reserves and look to cut spending, unless they can convince legislators to pony up more state funds than Lamont would.
For the state's K-12 schools, a$54 million investment in special education, announced earlier this week, was allocated in the second year of the governor's biennial budget. But districts had called for about $90 million more from the state to cover growing costs — funding many say can't wait.
Increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates, restructuring hospital taxes and reining in pharmaceutical costs topped Lamont's list of health care priorities in his proposed budget.
The proposal includes an increase of $35.4 million in state funding for Medicaid reimbursement to providers over the biennium, including $10.4 million in FY 2026 and $25 million in FY 2027.
Legislators and physicians for years have been sounding the alarm that the prevailing reimbursement rates were too low, making it unaffordable for health care providers to treat patients with Medicaid coverage.
Additionally, Lamont wants hospitals to pay an extra $140 million in the second year of the new budget but also would increase payments back to the industry by a matching amount. The administration estimates this arrangement would qualify Connecticut for an additional $94 million in federal Medicaid reimbursement.
The arrangement would help to dig the Medicaid program out of its fiscal deficit, projected to be $290 million in FY 2025. But, it also essentially asks hospitals again to trust that increased taxes won't lead to fiscal abuses by the state down the road.
Lamont's budget also includes several provisions aimed at tackling the high cost of prescription drugs.
The budget would allow the purchase of out-of-pocket and out-of-network prescription drugs to count toward consumers' health plan deductibles, provided they pay a lower price for those drugs than they would at an in-network pharmacy with insurance.
And the governor pitched adding funds for oversight of hospitals and home care programs following news of Prospect Medical Holdings filing for bankruptcy. The company owns three Connecticut hospitals — in Waterbury, Manchester and Vernon.
Investments in child care that Gov. Ned Lamont hopes will eventually allow Connecticut to establish a universal preschool program formed the signature piece of his proposal for spending on human services in the coming biennium.
Lamont's proposal would invest $300 million of the state's surplus fund for fiscal year 2025 into a new Universal Preschool Endowment. Each subsequent year, certain surplus funding could be transferred into the endowment, with the state treasurer investing the money to increase profit.
But the proposal does not fully address the needs of othernonprofits who provide a slew of state services including food assistance, shelter for the homeless, therapeutic services, and aid for people with disabilities.
The governor's budget includes an additional $157 million over the next two years for nonprofit service providers. Nonprofits would receive $31 million the first year, with a boost of $126 million coming the following year.
But providers received $50 million in one-time federal COVID relief dollars for this fiscal year, which will not be renewed. That means in fiscal year 2026, when they receive an additional $31 million, they'll actually see a net loss in funding ahead of another increase in fiscal year 2027.
Compiled by Gabby DeBenedictis and Kat Struhar. Copyright 2025 © The Connecticut Mirror (https://ctmirror.org).
This article originally appeared on The Bulletin: Gov. Lamont's CT budget proposal has income tax cut, education funding
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republican lawmaker's raucous town hall reflects challenges in promoting Trump's bill
By Helen Coster MAHOPAC, New York (Reuters) -Democratic voter Joe Mayhew, a union representative living in a New York swing district, was one of several people at a rowdy town hall with Republican Representative Mike Lawler on Sunday keen to point out potential pitfalls with President Donald Trump's budget. He fears proposed changes to Medicaid requirements could have a devastating effect on people unable to work through no fault of their own. "If your cuts to Medicaid pass, a person working in a low-paying job as an individual contractor who falls ill or has work interrupted because it's seasonal, or because it was a job shutdown - something not of any fault of their own - could not make your 80-hour requirement on a particular month," Mayhew, 63, told Lawler at the town hall in Mahopac, New York. Lawler defended the bill's Medicaid provision, which requires recipients age 19-64 who have no dependents to work, volunteer or be in school at least 80 hours a month starting in 2027. "The objective is to help people get into the workforce ultimately," he said. The exchange at the Sunday night event, where boos were more common than cheers, reflects the kinds of issues that are vexing some Republicans as they seek to promote and defend Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill. The two-hour-long town hall, attended by roughly 500 people, was also an indication of how voters in a swing district that narrowly voted for Lawler feel about the bill and Trump's agenda more broadly. Topics ranged from the justification of Trump's June 14 military parade to attacks on higher education, to whether ICE agents should wear masks during raids and how to fund social security in the future. A moderate Republican representing New York's 17th District, Lawler won re-election in November, defeating former Democratic Representative Mondaire Jones with over 52% of votes. He has expressed interest in running for governor. Lawler's district was the scene of one of the 2022 general election's biggest upsets when he beat Democratic Representative Sean Patrick Maloney – who was head of the Democrats' House campaign arm. Lawler has scheduled four public town hall meetings with voters this year, despite guidance from U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who urged fellow Republican lawmakers to avoid them after some events turned into angry confrontations over Trump's moves to fire federal workers and defund government programs. Lawler's two previous town halls were even more raucous events where several attendees were removed by law enforcement. FIELDING JEERS Trump's 1,100-page bill passed in May in a 215-214 vote, and will add about $3.8 trillion to the federal government's $36.2 trillion in debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It would extend corporate and individual tax cuts passed in 2017 during Trump's first term in office, cancel many green-energy incentives passed by Democratic former President Joe Biden and tighten eligibility for health and food programs for the poor. Tesla and SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk denounced Trump's bill as a "disgusting abomination" last week, prior to the two men exchanging public insults. Other Republican representatives have also had to field jeers at town halls. During a May 28 town hall in Decorah, Iowa, Republican Congresswoman Ashley Hinson was booed after she told attendees: 'I was also proud to vote for President Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' last week.' The previous day, Republican Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska told attendees at his town hall that when he voted for the bill, he was unaware it would limit judges' power to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. The response was met with boos from the crowd, with one attendee calling his behavior 'ridiculous.' Flood said he would work to ensure the provision isn't in the final version of the bill. That said, such town halls have been few and far between. Lawler said he felt it was important to have this type of forum. "Almost all of my colleagues are not doing it, and I've been asked why I would do it. But this is your right to come and engage in this dialog. So that's why we're here." He also noted his work on pushing for increases in the so-called SALT deduction for state and local tax payments. He and other Republicans from Democratic-led, high-tax states had previously threatened to oppose Trump's legislation unless there were increases. Trump's current bill would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $40,000 for state and local tax (SALT) payments, up from $10,000 now, with benefits phasing out for households that make more than $500,000. A previous version of the bill had a cap of $30,000. Lawmakers next need to pass the bill in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority and are planning to use a legislative maneuver to bypass the chamber's 60-vote filibuster threshold for most legislation.
Vox
31 minutes ago
- Vox
Trump's big, beautiful bill, explained in 5 charts
covers politics Vox. She first joined Vox in 2019, and her work has also appeared in Politico, Washington Monthly, and the New Republic. President Donald Trump, joined by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, speaks to members of the media as he arrives for a House Republican meeting at the Capitol on May 20, fight over President Donald Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill is turning ugly. After passing the GOP-controlled House, the bill has moved to the Senate, where Republicans are facing a bitter divide over how to balance their competing priorities. They want to extend and expand Trump's tax cuts, which disproportionately benefit the rich and come at a steep price tag, as well as bolster immigration enforcement and defense spending. However, some are reluctant to do so while increasing the national debt by almost $2.6 trillion and slashing Medicaid benefits. Republicans want to pass the bill by July 4 through a complex process known as budget reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes to pass. There are 53 Republicans in the Senate, but it's unclear whether they will be able to resolve their disagreements in time. Some Republican senators, including Ron Johnson (R-WI.) and Rand Paul (R-KY), have criticized the current version of the bill as unreasonable. Trump megadonor (and newly sworn enemy) Elon Musk has called on lawmakers to rework the legislation, which he dubbed a 'disgusting abomination.' 'Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL,' Musk said in a post on X Wednesday. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day, compiled by news editor Sean Collins. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said that Musk is 'flat wrong' about the bill and that there is not enough time to go back to the drawing board. So, what exactly is in the bill, and what does it mean — for the deficit and for Americans? We break it down, in charts. The bill would cause the US deficit to skyrocket This spending bill is expensive, and short of truly drastic cuts to nearly all social programs (and perhaps not even with such cuts), it's not clear that the government could feasibly pass it without increasing the national debt. The version that passed the House would raise the deficit by trillions of dollars over the next decade, not accounting for the potential effects the bill would have on the US economy. That spending is concentrated between 2025 and 2028, coinciding with the next presidential election. Republicans once campaigned against raising the national debt during the Obama administration, framing it as a national security threat and a burden to future generations. But it's no longer the rallying cry it once was. There are reasons to be concerned about a growing national debt. As my colleague Dylan Matthews writes, the bond market is already bristling at the prospect of such a significant increase in the deficit, a warning of potential economic downturn or even further increasing debt due to higher servicing costs if the bill becomes law. Tax cuts are what make the bill so expensive Trump wants to build on the tax cuts he passed during his first term. They are set to expire this year if Congress does not act, and the spending bill would keep them in place. It would also add some new ones, including the elimination of taxes on tips. That is going to cost the US government. A breakdown of the bill's budgetary effects published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that the House Ways and Means Committee, which presides over tax policy, would be permitted to contribute an additional $3.8 trillion to the deficit — far more than any other House committee. That's at least in part because tax revenue would be lower under the bill. Meanwhile, the Armed Services and Homeland Security committees are the only others where Trump is seeking significant increases in spending as he seeks to deliver on his campaign promise of 'mass deportations' with assistance from the military. Any spending cuts in other areas aren't nearly enough to counterbalance the resulting increase in the US deficit. That would likely require Republicans to slash public benefits even further than they already have in this bill. While they haven't gone so far as to touch Social Security benefits, they have gone after Medicaid and insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act. Millions could become uninsured under the spending bill Republicans have also included measures in the bill that would greatly increase the number of people without health insurance, according to a CBO estimate. One provision allows enhanced premium tax credits for ACA insurance plans to lapse, which would increase premiums for millions of Americans who rely on them. After the Covid-19 stimulus bill was signed in 2021, these tax credits became available to anyone whose premiums were over 8.5 percent of their household income — not just people earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line. Enrollment in ACA plans subsequently doubled to 24.3 million people between 2020 and 2025. The House bill would allow those expanded tax credits to expire this year, effectively driving people out of the ACA marketplaces with higher costs. Another provision would significantly decrease Medicaid enrollment by creating a work requirement for people under the age of 64 who do not have a dependent under 7 years old. While not directly slashing Medicaid benefits, the work requirement would create additional barriers to Medicaid access, including administrative hurdles that could result in lower enrollment even among people who do work. (It's worth noting that most nondisabled Medicaid recipients already work.) Some states have already implemented similar work requirements with disappointing results. Arkansas and Georgia saw Medicaid enrollments plummet thereafter, with a court eventually overturning the Arkansas requirements on the basis that they violated federal Medicaid law. The spending bill disproportionately benefits the rich Under the tax cuts passed by Trump during his first term, the top 1 percent of earners saw the most significant gains, both in dollar amounts and as a percentage of their incomes. This time is no different. Top earners will again profit significantly from the House spending bill, according to the CBO. The lowest earners, meanwhile, will see their household resources shrink, primarily due to reduced access to public benefits programs such as Medicaid and SNAP and higher ACA insurance premiums. The bill could have a big impact on immigrant populations and their families abroad The House bill advances numerous provisions targeting immigrants and undermining their US-citizen relatives, from restricting access to public benefits for families in which at least one person is undocumented to imposing new fees on asylum-seekers. However, there is one that would have a sizable impact well beyond America's borders: a new tax on remittances, the payments that immigrants typically send to their families in their home countries. The US is the largest source of remittances worldwide. Some of the top receiving countries include America's neighbors in Central and South America — countries that have produced high numbers of migrants in recent years. That's significant because remittances have historically accounted for much larger sums than any foreign aid provided by the US and represent efficient, direct payments to individuals who can spend that money on what they need, mitigating economic incentives for them to migrate.
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
What's a Medicaid cut? Senate GOP tiptoes around $800B question
When is a Medicaid cut not actually a cut? That's the $800 billion question facing Senate Republicans as they write their own version of the sweeping House-passed tax and spending bill. Administration officials and senators defending against attacks on the bill have coalesced around a message that there will be no cuts to benefits, and the only people who will lose coverage are the ones who never deserved it to begin with: namely immigrants without legal status and 'able-bodied' individuals who shouldn't be on Medicaid. 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more commonsense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said during a recent CNN interview. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.' Among many provisions, the House bill would require states to deny Medicaid to people who can't prove they are working, looking for work, in school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It would prohibit states from using their own money to cover immigrants without legal status and would deny coverage to other lawfully present immigrants who are currently eligible. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation will result in nearly 11 million people losing health insurance coverage over the next decade. The Medicaid provisions alone would result in 7.8 million people losing their insurance. Those coverage losses would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for the federal government. However, GOP lawmakers and administration officials insist the legislation will protect Medicaid for 'deserving' people such as the elderly and disabled, while forcing others to prove they aren't freeloading. 'It's important for us to provide a nudge to some Americans to remember that they have agency over their future,' Mehmet Oz, the administration's Medicare and Medicaid chief, told reporters on Wednesday, following a closed-door meeting with GOP senators. Later Wednesday in an interview on Fox Business, Oz elaborated. 'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he said. Republicans are wary about being attacked over health care cuts, and they're eager to reframe the debate and try to go on offense. Voter backlash over the 2017 ObamaCare repeal effort led to widespread GOP losses and cost them control of the House in the 2018 midterms. 'Give me a break, This is just fear-mongering from Democrats,' Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on the social platform X. 'No one's losing health care—unless you count the 1.4 million illegal immigrants getting Medicaid on your dime.' Most immigrants without legal status can't qualify for Medicaid at the federal level, but some blue states have extended health care coverage to them. The legislation would penalize those states if they continued to offer coverage by lowering their federal matching rate. In a CNBC interview Thursday, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said the people who lose Medicaid coverage will merely transition to employer-sponsored health care. 'It's not kicking people off Medicaid. It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care. So yes, we've got 10 million people that are not going to be on Medicaid, but they then are going to be on employer-provided health care,' Lankford said. Yet according to the CBO, 'few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage.' A bloc of Republican senators has been raising concerns about some of the Medicaid provisions, and some have said they do not like the idea of anything that could be interpreted as a cut. But by and large, they've signaled the coverage losses aren't what's troubling. '[We need to] protect the program for the people that really deserve and need the help and need the program, you know, and that's children, disabled, seniors, on and on and on,' said Sen. Jim Justice ( 'That's what we got to do. You know, at the end of the day, we shouldn't be protecting the program for people that are abusing or people that shouldn't be eligible, or whatever.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has said he worries about the bill's potential impact on rural hospitals and pledged to withhold support from any bill that cuts Medicaid benefits. But what is a benefit cut? 'If my state tells me that, because of legislative changes in the House bill, the Senate bill, we're going to have to cut benefits. That's a benefit cut,' Hawley told The Hill. Missouri has 1.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries, but Hawley said he thinks there would only be a small number impacted by the work requirements. 'I'm fine with people who are able-bodied and not working … I'm all for that. So you know what, cut benefits from illegal aliens. Yeah, I'm fine with that, but I'm concerned about people who are here legally, residents of my state, citizens of my state, who are working and would lose health care coverage,' he said. Hawley has said that President Trump reiterated his opposition against any Medicaid cuts during recent conversations about the 'big, beautiful bill,' though the president supported the House version. Health experts say the impact of the cuts will go far beyond the small slice of the population Republicans claim. Work requirements will likely add layers of red tape for people to prove they meet the threshold. 'The people losing coverage aren't people who aren't working … but they're actually people who should satisfy the work reporting or should qualify for an exemption, but they can't navigate the complex systems for either reporting one's hours for work or other activities,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. The legislation includes some exemptions, like for caregiving, but it doesn't specify what would qualify or how beneficiaries would prove they qualify. There's no requirement that states exempt people automatically, Park said, so many people who would be eligible likely wouldn't be enrolled. No matter how Republicans spin it, Park said, 'these are huge Medicaid cuts. They're going to take away coverage from millions of low-income people.' 'And those cuts are going to affect everyone throughout the Medicaid program, not just the expansion group, but also kids, seniors and people with disabilities,' he added. 'And it's going to have big ripple effects throughout the health care system.'
