On Wednesday, Jan. 8, the 2025 Legislative Session kicked off — and lawmakers wasted no time introducing new bills. Since then, the Senate has already churned out 451 bills, while the House offered 104. With the “long” session ending midnight on June 4, we can expect more pieces of legislation to be introduced.
The Democrats, who hold a supermajority in the General Assembly, have unveiled their list of priorities, including tackling energy costs, ramping up environmental regulations, and pouring more money into schools, special education, and student resources. Other top agenda items include regulating artificial intelligence (AI), addressing homelessness and housing affordability, and using tax dollars to pay workers choosing to go on strike.
Meanwhile, Gov. Ned Lamont will present his proposed two-year budget in the upcoming weeks. Unlike some of his Democratic colleagues, the governor has publicly stated his support for the “fiscal guardrails,” spending reforms enacted in 2017. These reforms have saved the state $170 million, freed up over $700 million for essential services, reduced state debt, boosted credit ratings, and even paved the way for the 2023 income tax cut. Removing or weakening these safeguards would drag Connecticut back to the fiscal nightmare of its pre-2017 days, when bankruptcy seemed inevitable.
While the governor avoided directly addressing the fiscal guardrails in his State of the State Address on Wednesday, he emphasized “affordability and opportunity,” saying that his administration has “broken the bad habits” by paying down the pension debt and that “we are just getting started.”
However, House and Senate members appear divided on the issue. Republicans in both chambers are standing with Gov. Lamont in keeping the guardrails intact. In a Dec. 20 emailed statement, the Senate Republican Caucus reaffirmed their commitment to the fiscal controls, writing, “We support the governor and the comptroller in defending the smart bipartisan guardrails which Republicans fought so hard to implement in 2017 when the Senate was tied.”
They added, “those controls have injected discipline into government spending and borrowing,” crediting the guardrails with helping pay down the “state’s huge credit card tab,” bringing “stability to our budgeting,” delivering tax cuts, and enabling the state to pay down $700 million annually on pension debt.
House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora (R-North Branford) echoed this sentiment, telling CT Examiner that “these guardrails have served us well and I think we should continue to follow fiscal discipline that is really at the underpinning of those guardrails.”
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats seem more willing to bend. Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney (D-New Haven) told NBC Connecticut that he “certainly hope[s] we’ll be able to come to some agreement on flexibility regarding the fiscal guardrails.” Speaker of the House Matt Ritter (D-Hartford) has yet to weigh in definitively.
Special interests looking for handouts made their presence known at the Capitol on Wednesday, pressuring lawmakers to break the guardrails. Groups like Husky for Immigrants were among those lobbying to expand Husky health insurance to undocumented workers. Others clamored for costly climate initiatives and educators were all looking for increased spending.
The Connecticut AFL-CIO, who called the guardrails “fiscal roadblocks,” are demanding more spending on public education, childcare, long-term care, and expanded healthcare access. Their ultimate goal seems to be a cradle-to-grave government spending spree on taxpayers’ dime.
The real question now is whether lawmakers will cave to the demands of these special interest groups or stand firm to protect the financial future of all Connecticut residents.
Will There be Relief on Energy Bills?
The Energy and Technology Committee held its first meeting on Thursday (Jan. 9). Typically, these introductory sessions are quick meet-and-greets to set the agenda for the session. However, it isn’t surprising this meeting dragged on for more than 45 minutes. Energy prices have been a hot topic issue for Connecticut residents, with ratepayers hit by staggering increases last July — largely thanks to the controversial public benefits charges tacked onto their bills.
Co-Chair Jonathan Steinberg (D-Westport) started the meeting off noting that the committee was once considered “a sort of Siberia for those who did something wrong to leadership.” However, Rep. Steinberg emphasized that the committee’s importance has grown.
“Energy is on everyone’s minds right now, as it should be,” he said, acknowledging the growing focus on energy affordability and the burden high prices place on Connecticut residents.
Rep. Steinberg outlined the committee’s priorities, including affordability, energy efficiency, and modernizing infrastructure.
“We will talk a lot about the supply of energy to meet burgeoning demand, and also the importance of energy efficiency,” he said. “We will talk a lot about infrastructure, upgrading the grid, and also making sure we have a well-developed transmission network to bring energy from wherever it’s generated to the benefit of the people here in Connecticut.”
Ranking Member Sen. Ryan Fazio (R-Greenwich) said that energy affordability will be a priority of the committee and that they will “try to find bipartisan solutions to achieve affordability while also protecting the reliability of the grid and clean air for all of our residents.”
No votes were taken but committee members have already introduced 38 bills of which five aim to remove the public benefits charge completely from electric bills.
It is interesting to point out that two members Rep. Mary Mushinsky (D-Wallingford) and Rep. Aundre Bumgardner (D-Groton) represent towns that have their own public power companies. Hopefully they’ll bring some meaningful insight to the conversation about reducing Connecticut’s sky-high electric rates.
Laborpalooza
The Labor and Public Employee Committee also convened on Thursday where lawmakers introduced themselves and committee members expressed their readiness to address labor issues and improving working conditions in Connecticut.
The standout moment of the meeting came from freshman Rep. Nick Gauthier (D-Waterford), a former union boss for the Eastern Connecticut Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.
Rep. Gauthier made it abundantly clear he’ll be a reliable ally for big labor’s agenda. He didn’t hold back in stating his priorities, calling the committee “an incredibly important committee” and emphasizing its role “to make sure that the working people, working families, and labor union members in our state are very well protected.”
No bills were brought to a vote, but last year’s controversial proposal to pay workers to go on strike was reintroduced. This bill is clearly a top priority for Senate Democrats, with 19 out of 25 senators already signing on as cosponsors.
Still in its early stages, the proposal is shaping up to be a massive omnibus package catered exclusively to big labor. It’s less a piece of legislation and more of a union gravy train.
So far, the bill not only includes payments for striking workers but also calls for regulating production quotas at certain warehouse distribution centers, like Amazon. To top it off, it features a vague placeholder about “protecting workers’ rights,” seemingly leaving room for lawmakers to fill in the details after public hearings.
As if this bill weren’t problematic enough, two of its cosponsors raise glaring ethical concerns that should disqualify them from even voting on it.
Sen. Jan Hochadel (D-Meriden), who has a track record of conflict-of-interest voting and has even boasted about it in her weekly updates to constituents, also serves as the president of the Connecticut chapter of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).
Joining her as a cosponsor is Sen. Martha Marx (D-New London), president of AFT Local 5119 and a visiting nurse. While the AFT’s name might suggest a focus on teachers, the union also represents nurses and other healthcare professionals, including Marx herself.
Both senators have a direct financial stake in the outcome of this legislation, bringing up ethics questions. Marx, for instance, would benefit directly if she went on strike, as the bill would essentially guarantee her a paycheck during the process. Hochadel’s conflict is equally troubling: her six-figure salary as AFT president is an elected position, dependent on maintaining union support. By passing legislation that rewards her members, she secures her own paycheck and position.
This blatant disregard for ethical boundaries raises serious questions about the integrity of the legislative process and the senators’ commitment to serving the public rather than their own interests.
Environmentalists in Favor of Public Benefits Charge
This week I wrote about how Environmentalists not only want the Public Benefits Charge to remain on electric bills they want to expand the programs they fund.
Click here to tell lawmakers if they want to fund these “green” initiatives that they need to be funded through the General Fund and not off the backs of Connecticut’s ratepayers.
