Surging income and business tax receipts to give Conn. its second-largest surplus ever
Surging income and business tax receipts will leave Connecticut with its second-largest surplus in state history, analysts reported Wednesday, even as officials remained divided whether to use any of the $2.3 billion windfall to mitigate big cuts in federal aid.
And while the consensus revenue report from Gov. Ned Lamont's administration and the legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis showed a modest softening of revenues in the future, analysts still anticipate Connecticut will save an average of almost $1.3 billion in each of the next two fiscal years.
'Connecticut's current fiscal year outlook remains positive,' Lamont said Wednesday, before quickly adding, 'there are troubling signs' for the near future.
Despite the latest surge, the sales tax — Connecticut's second-largest revenue engine after the income tax — is beginning to sputter. Analysts had expected the sales tax, which will produce $5.1 billion this fiscal year, to generate $127 million more in 2025-26, and $256 million more by 2026-27. Now they say there will be no growth next fiscal year, and only $127 million more two years from now.
Similarly, the corporation tax was expected to generate $1.56 billion this fiscal year for the state and then climb to almost $1.6 billion by 2026-27. Now analysts have downgraded expectations for this fiscal year's receipts by $85 million, and that level largely will remain flat for the next two years.
'The economic policies coming out of Washington are directly impacting our state's economic future, as evidenced by leading indicators such as consumer confidence,' the governor added. 'Over the coming weeks, I will be working with legislative leaders to pass an honestly balanced budget that protects Connecticut's core values, provides flexibility for inevitable federal cuts, and adheres to our statutory and constitutional budget obligations."
A controversial budget cap that bars legislators from spending a portion of income and business tax receipts will capture $1.9 billion this fiscal year, according to analysts who had been projecting $1.4 billion in savings before the report was issued.
That $1.9 billion, combined with the $384 million operating surplus the administration projected this week, would leave Connecticut with an unspent cushion equal to 10% of the General Fund. The projected $2.3 billion combined surplus is topped only by 2021-22, when Connecticut finished $4.3 billion in the black, an outlier driven by the arrival of billions in new federal pandemic aid.
Critics of the budget caps say the system is far too aggressive and that much of the reported 'surplus' is revenue badly needed for education, human services, municipal aid and other core programs.
And with three-quarters of the General Fund tied to fixed or largely fixed costs, including contractually pledged wages, Medicaid, debt service and payments toward pensions and other retirement benefits, removing 10% from the remaining quarter budget has a big impact.
Majority Democrats in the House and Senate have pushed for the past two years to scale back these savings efforts. Lamont, a fiscal moderate, largely has resisted. But he conceded in February that some change should be made and proposed reducing mandatory savings modestly by about $300 million per year starting July 1.
But the governor and his fellow Democrats are farther apart on how to use this fiscal year's windfall when it comes to the threat of impending cuts in federal aid.
With Congress aiming to reduce Medicaid and other programs by as much as $880 billion over the next decade, Lamont has said some models show Connecticut losing as much as $880 million in annual Medicaid assistance alone. Federal officials also are eyeing cutbacks in assistance for K-12 education, public colleges and universities, and other health care programs that could cost the state and its municipalities hundreds of millions in additional yearly assistance.
House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, and Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, both appealed to Lamont recently to carve out a portion of this fiscal year's surplus to mitigate likely losses from Washington. The state has a $4.1 billion rainy day fund equal to 18% of the General Fund, but Democratic leaders say much of that could be spent in the next two years if the national slips into a severe recession.
'Four billion dollars,' Ritter said earlier this month, 'could go so quickly that people's heads will explode.'
And Looney has noted that, traditionally, Washington responds to an economic downturn by increasing aid to states. If there is a slump and a contraction in federal aid, the double-whammy would be unprecedented.
The Democratic-controlled Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee last week approved a measure that would set $700 million of the surplus aside to mitigate cuts in federal aid.
Progressive groups also are urging the governor to ease Connecticut's savings efforts to preserve programs here.
'We would join the Governor in celebrating a 10% budget surplus if our schools were fully funded, housing and healthcare were affordable, and our public services were fully staffed,' said Norma Martinez HoSang, director of CT For All, a coalition of more than 60 faith, labor and other civic organizations. 'Instead, we are facing unprecedented federal funding threats while working families continue to pay more for less.'
Lamont has been reluctant to commit anything more than the rainy day fund to solve all challenges facing Connecticut's finances. He prefers to use the projected surplus to continue whittling down the state's considerable pension debt, which topped $35 billion entering this fiscal year. Pension burdens, created by inadequate funding between 1939 and 2010, are projected to continue to strain state finances well into the 2040s.
'Our fiscal house has been rebuilt to weather an economic downturn,' said Jeffrey Beckham, the governor's budget director. 'Now is not the time to tear it down.'
Lamont also has support from minority Republicans in the House and Senate, who oppose any reduction in savings efforts.
'The [state budget] caps that we have in place have well positioned us for what may or may not happen at the federal level,' said House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, who added that excessive spending ordered by the Democratic state legislators are behind weakening consumer and business confidence in Connecticut.
'These numbers should have the Democrats looking in the mirror,' he added.
'What this report shows is that, without question, the fiscal guardrails that Republicans fought to implement and preserve are working,' Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield and Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich, ranking GOP senator on the finance committee, wrote in a joint statement Wednesday. 'They are saving taxpayers billions and protecting against economic fluctuations. They have helped to control state government spending. They are paying down on the state's debt.'
But Ritter and Looney both were hopeful Wednesday a compromise could be reached, at least between majority Democrats and Lamont.
The surplus is large enough, Democratic leaders said, to set aside funds to offset federal aid cuts; make a large payment to shrink pension debt; and adopt Lamont's February plan to take $300 million from this year's windfall to expand child care services.
'We're fortunate to be in a position to do that,' Looney said.
'I do think [the rising surplus] makes budget negotiations even easier,' Ritter added.
Legislators and Lamont and aiming to adopt a new spending plan for the next two fiscal years before the regular General Assembly session adjourns on June 4.
Keith M. Phaneuf is a reporter for The Connecticut Mirror (https://ctmirror.org). Copyright 2025 © The Connecticut Mirror.
This article originally appeared on The Bulletin: Officials divided on spending CT surplus to mitigate federal aid cuts
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Dems unveil their answer on Medicaid fraud
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., will release Senate Democrats' answer to Republican efforts to combat Medicaid and Medicare fraud as part of the GOP's sweeping tax-and-spending bill. A discussion draft crafted by the Nevada Democrat and shared with Semafor would boost funding for the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program, which recovered $11 for every $1 it spent in 2022, and expand it to oversee all Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services programs, including the Affordable Care Act's health insurance marketplace. The centerpiece of a larger suite of proposals Senate Democrats will announce today, it's 'exactly what our agencies need to root out real fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid while protecting Americans' access to care,' Cortez Masto said. Its release comes as congressional Republicans continue their push to pass their package by July 4.


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Bipartisanship Is Key to Fiscal Responsibility
Fiscal responsibility has never been for the faint of heart. It's easy to talk about the need to fix budget deficits and strengthen the economy for the next generation; it's another thing entirely to get the job done. But Moody's downgrading the U.S. debt provides an immediate reminder that time is running out. We now have all three rating agencies warning about our fiscal situation—no surprises there given that debt as a share of the economy is about to surpass our all-time record, and our nearly $2 trillion annual deficit is larger than spending on defense, Medicaid, and veterans' benefits combined. But our current 10-year plan is nonetheless to add more than another $20 trillion to borrowing and while political leaders may try to ignore these warnings, as seen from whipsawing Treasury markets, our lenders will not. The rising sun turns the sky orange behind the Lincoln Memorial, left, Washington Monument, center, and the U.S. Capitol building, right. The rising sun turns the sky orange behind the Lincoln Memorial, left, Washington Monument, center, and the U.S. Capitol building, right. run-up in the 10-year yield last month from a recent low of 3.9 percent to 4.6 percent in just a few days was a nasty reminder that while we may have grown used to low interest rates, there is no guarantee that they will stay low. And with a $29 trillion debt, one-third of which will turn over in the next 12 months, higher rates quickly lead to higher interest payments on the debt—already the second largest item in the budget. Furthermore, the very fact that rates increased along with a sell-off in U.S. stocks and the dollar is worrying in that normally, signs of economic weakness lead to lower interest rates as investors flee to safety. If we lose that "exorbitant privilege," where investors gravitate toward Treasurys as a safe haven, a fiscal crisis—with a vicious cycle of higher rates, higher debt payments, and more borrowing—might be closer than any of us are prepared for. Changing course will need leadership. It will need bipartisanship. And, ultimately, it will need a concrete plan. We should start by returning to actual budgeting. We haven't passed a real budget in 10 years. We need to budget with comprehensive program priorities, spending levels, a pay-for plan, and a fiscal target—something that would demonstrate fiscal progress, against which policy changes could be evaluated. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has laid out the administration's goal of bringing the budget deficit down to 3 percent of GDP, from its current non-emergency record of over 6 percent. We endorse this goal. It will require us to reduce deficits by about $8 trillion over the coming decade, which is about five times more than the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which in itself was the single largest deficit reduction plan in more than a decade. We'll need even more savings if the current reconciliation bill adds to the debt as it is expected to but less if growth is higher—there are credible estimates that growth could cover as much as $700 billion of tax cuts. The best way forward would be to put together a package of pro-growth, pro-work, and pro-efficiency policies that have at least $2 of savings for every $1 of costs. Getting there won't be easy, but it is the price we pay for ignoring the fiscal warnings in years past. We must stop demagoguing Social Security and find a fix so the program doesn't become insolvent. A plan might include things like raising the retirement age for younger workers, means-testing benefits for the well-off, altering how inflation is calculated, and/or lifting the payroll tax cap. Likewise, Medicare needs reforms—everything from reducing wasteful overpayments for Medicare Advantage plans to more structural changes like shifting to a premium-support model should be on the table. To start this conversation, our leaders need to acknowledge that we have to make changes to save these important programs rather than burying their heads in the sand. We will also need to find savings from national defense, including by reforming the procurement process, and we need to reform discretionary spending and welfare programs to root out waste, redundancies, and outdated programs, while extending spending caps that expire at the end of this year. Revenues will have to be higher. One pro-growth way to do this is drastically shrink the number of spending programs that are run through the tax code, many of which have the perverse effects of driving up the costs of things they are claiming to make affordable, as they do in housing, higher education, and health care. All told, there are over $20 trillion of spending-like tax breaks over the budget window, enough that if we are aggressive, we can broaden the base, lower rates, and raise more revenues. The fixes will not come from either party alone; they are too easy to attack, and the effort will need to be bipartisan to provide the necessary political cover. It took both parties to get into this mess—three-quarters of the debt can be attributed to bipartisan legislation over the last 25 years—and it will take both to get out of it. Leon E. Panetta served as secretary of defense and director of the CIA in the Obama administration, as White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration, and in the House of Representatives from 1977-93. Bill Gradison Jr. served in the House of Representatives from 1975-93. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Take it from this retired Kansas judge: An independent bench reinforces justice
A statue representing justice stands at the Kansas Judicial Center, where the Kansas Supreme Court is located, on Feb. 4, 2022. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) This session, the Kansas Legislature voted to send Senate Concurrent Resolution 1611 to voters. This proposed constitutional amendment creates the direct partisan political election of Kansas Supreme Court justices. Such elections would be the death knell of an independent judiciary. I was fortunate to serve as a trial district court judge for two and a half decades. I was faced with making difficult decisions, but also very unpopular ones. The majority of the Legislature sadly confuses the court of law with the court of public opinion. Partisan election of judges conflicts with the very essence of the role of the judiciary. A judge has no constituency. A judge must not be influenced by popular opinion. A judge must not be beholden to a political party or a financial campaign contributor. Surely we can all agree we want our judiciary to be fair, impartial and insulated from outside influence. This distinction of judicial office from legislative and executive positions is recognized by the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct, canon 4. It addresses political activity by a judicial candidate that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary. Rule 4.1 (A)(6) states '(A) judge or judicial candidate shall not, in connection with cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the court.' A judge has no constituency. A judge must not be influenced by popular opinion. A judge must not be beholden to a political party or a financial campaign contributor. – Steven Becker This means no pledges, promises or commitments on gun control, abortion, Medicaid expansion or legalization of cannabis. The Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct explains further the importance of keeping our judiciary above the fray of political campaigns and rhetoric. 'A judge plays a role different from that of a legislator or executive branch official. Rather than making decisions based upon the expressed views or preferences of the electorate, a judge makes decisions based upon the law and the facts of every case. In furtherance of this interest, judges and judicial candidates, must, to the greatest extent possible, be free and appear to be free from political influence and political pressure. … Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject to political influence.' I suggest the ethical veil distinguishing a judicial candidate from a candidate for legislative or executive office is extremely important but extremely thin. While serving as a district court judge, I applied twice for a vacancy on the Kansas Court of Appeals. At the time, the selection process was the merit-based system that we currently have for selecting our Supreme Court justices. My efforts were unsuccessful. After going through the interview process and an aggressive background investigation, I willingly admit that candidates better than I were chosen to be considered for appointment by the governor. The merit-based selection system works and has worked for more than 50 years. The only reason a change to our state constitution is being sought is because the Kansas Supreme Court issued opinions that conflict with the court of public opinion — or the opinion of lawmakers in Topeka. If court decisions are to align with public opinions, I suggest that our public schools would still be segregated. The independence of our judiciary, free from outside political and ideological influence, is a bedrock to our democracy. An independent judiciary is vital to our government's balance of power with checks and balances. Steve Becker served as Reno County district judge for 26 years and served as state representative for the 104th District for three terms. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.