The Appropriations Committee’s debate over the state budget makes one thing clear: Connecticut’s fiscal guardrails and constitutional spending cap are treated more like speed bumps than actual limits. The proposed budget blows through the spending cap by $215 million.
On Tuesday, April 22, after a nearly 10-hour meeting — most of it behind closed doors — the committee advanced a $55.7 billion, two-year budget that openly violates the state’s constitutional spending cap. It passed on a 40–13 vote, largely along party lines.
The proposal sets spending at $27.3 billion in FY 2026, a 4% increase from this year, and $28.5 billion in FY 2027 — locking in a 5% hike and even greater long-term obligations.
Ignoring the Problem Won’t Make It Go Away
Left out of the budget was full funding for the Excess Cost Grant (ECG) — a program intended to help school districts cover the high costs of special education.
Under the current program, the state reimburses districts once a student’s special education costs get too expensive. But the money never matches the need. The state spent $181 million for the grant in both FY 2024 and FY 2025, but even then, it fell $50 million short of what was needed.
Instead of fixing it, the governor’s new budget repeats the same mistake — keeping funding at $181 million in FY 2026, increasing it to $221 million in FY 2027, and tossing in another $40 million spread over the two years. It still won’t be enough.
When it comes to Connecticut’s special education crisis, lawmakers talk a big game — but when given a real chance to act, they turn it into political theater.
During the budget debate , the $40 million earmarked for the ECG came under fire. “We know that to fully fund [ECG], we’re $108 million short,” said Rep. Tammy Nuccio (R-Tolland), who pointed out that the budget would still need $84 million more than it currently allocates. “Can you provide some guidance as to why we’re only doing 40 million when we know there’s a demand for 84?”
Sen. Cathy Osten (D-Sprague) didn’t deny the shortfall. “We know that we are not fully funding excess cost. We have never fully funded excess cost,” she said, before issuing a challenge: “I’m more than willing to take a friendly amendment right now from you to add in $84 million.”
Rep. Nuccio met the challenge and formally introduced an amendment to add $84 million in each year of the biennium — fully offset by cutting $42 million from UConn and UConn Health in FY 2026, and $31.85 million from UConn and $47.15 million from the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) in FY 2027. Those areas were identified as places to move funds because “they have a $685 million reserve,” Rep. Nuccio noted.
However, the amendment failed, 41–11.
Minutes later, Democrats turned around and proposed the exact same $84 million increase — this time with no offsets, no attempt at fiscal balance, and no concern for the constitutional spending cap.
“Allowing this entire conversation to turn into a game of chicken is blatantly unfair,” said Rep. Mitch Bolinsky (R-Newtown). “We are nowhere near being able to implement the grand plans for special education… we have no infrastructure, we have no accountability.” He warned the state was voting to throw money at a system that has no capacity to spend it wisely.
Still, he voted yes. “Special education is an absolute necessity,” Rep. Bolinsky said. “We need to get serious about treating it like one.”
In the end, lawmakers passed the second amendment — not because they had a plan, but because not making the unions mad was easier. Special education only became a “priority” once it didn’t require giving up anything else.
Also suspiciously missing from the revised budget: the $370 million in state employee raises the governor had planned. That money is now off the books — at least for now.
Contract negotiations are still ongoing between the administration and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC), and according to Sen. Osten, “neither side is anywhere near ready to come forward with a contract package this year.”
In other words, the 33% in wage and step increases since 2019 apparently isn’t enough, and taxpayers should brace for another round of retroactive pay, step hikes, and raises once a deal is struck.
Even basic salary math seems suspect. For example, in the Legislative Branch portion of the budget, under “annualized cost of existing wage agreements,” the Legislative Management account saw a sharp and unexplained spike. Gov. Ned Lamont recommended $2.89 million in each fiscal year for these increased wage costs. The Appropriations Committee inflated that to $4.66 million in FY 2026 and $6.85 million in FY 2027 — a jump of more than 130% over two years.
This pattern of unexplained escalation shows up elsewhere. For the Auditors of Public Accounts, the governor recommended $685,666 in both fiscal years. The committee increased that to $813,317 in FY 2026 and nearly $1.7 million in FY 2027 — a 148% increase from one year to the next, with no clear rationale provided.
The same story plays out at the Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity and Opportunity. Gov. Lamont’s proposed funding was modest: $45,584 annually for FY 2026 and FY 2027. The committee more than quadrupled that to $187,982 in FY 2026 and $286,777 in FY 2027.
In each case, straightforward adjustments based on existing agreements morph into dramatic increases — raising serious questions about whether these figures reflect actual costs or creative accounting to pad agency budgets.
Lawmakers at least made sure to follow one law — the one guaranteeing their own raises. The budget sets aside $336,346 for legislative pay hikes in the first year and $584,595 in the second, along with a boost in mileage reimbursement to 70 cents per mile just to drive to work.
In total, the legislative branch will receive $4.8 million more in FY 2026 and $10.5 million more in FY 2027 than what the governor had originally budgeted.
Early Voting, Big Costs, and Broken Promises
In the Executive Branch, the Secretary of the States (SOTS) office sees their budget increase by more than $10 million dollars going from $59.1 in the Governor’s Budget to $69.9 million. Turns out early voting comes with a pretty hefty price tag.
Early voting officially rolled out on January 1, 2024, requiring 14 days of early voting for general elections, seven days for most primaries, and four days for special elections and presidential preference primaries. Every town in Connecticut must set up at least one early voting site, with the option to open more.
The Appropriations Committee didn’t hold back — it quadrupled the governor’s proposed early voting allocation, jumping from $1.14 million to $4.64 million. And in case that wasn’t enough, they also added $150,000 to fund an “election monitor” in Bridgeport — even though the governor didn’t request a dime for it.
The SOTS office is also adding 13 new staff positions, at least five of which are replacing temporary ARPA-funded roles that were used in the last general election under Secretary Stephanie Thomas.
And thank goodness, because according to House Speaker Matt Ritter (D-Hartford), early voting is a civic miracle. “Early voting will increase voter turnout,” he assured residents, explaining that “your voice should not be silenced just because you can’t make it to the polls within a 14-hour span on a single day.”
But the results tell a different story. Voter turnout actually dropped in the 2024 presidential election compared to 2020. Roughly 76% of registered voters cast ballots — down from 80% four years earlier, and the lowest presidential turnout since 2012.
And if you need a more recent example, just look at Shelton’s special election on April 22. Turnout in the 113th House District? A whopping 17% of registered voters.
Budget Rewards Underspending with Even More Cash
After years of carrying lapsed funds, the Attorney General’s (AG) office saw only a modest bump in the governor’s proposed budget — from $39.2 million in FY 2025, $39.3 million in FY 2026, and $39.5 million in FY 2027. But the Appropriations Committee took it further, proposing $41.2 million in both FY 2026 and FY 2027 — despite the office’s history of underspending.
Rep. Nuccio wasn’t buying it. She flagged what she called “lapsed money” noting that the AG’s office routinely leaves funds unspent, only for Gov. Lamont to sweep the leftovers. Yet this budget still hands the office another $2 million — $1.5 million AG William Tong says he needs, plus an extra $500,000 without much of an explanation.
“I just find that a little concerning,” Rep. Nuccio said, especially for an office that’s been requesting more while using less. But Democrats jumped to defend the increase.
Rep. Jillian Gilchrest (D-West Hartford) applauded the extra funding, pointing to the AG’s lawsuits against the Trump’s administration: “In this time, when the Attorney General… has had to file more than six lawsuits, it’s important for us to invest in his office.”
Plenty of Money for Higher Ed and Off-Budget Funds
Other budget items include an additional $15 million above current spending for the Department of Higher Education, another $280 million into UConn and UConn Health over two years. The CSCU got $108 million in additional funding.
Nonprofit providers, facing a major shortfall after the loss in federal COVID aid, will get an extra $19 million to avoid service cuts.
Lawmakers also carved out $300 million from the current surplus to create a new Early Childhood Fund — placing it in an off-budget account to be able to sidestep the spending cap.
The budget bill now heads to the House and Senate, where it’s likely to go through even more revisions to address the spending cap issue — unless the governor caves to special interests or the progressive wing of his party, who wants him to declare a fiscal emergency and suspend the fiscal guardrails. If that happens, they’ll be free to spend away with no real limits.
Some lawmakers are already laying the groundwork. As Rep. Gilchrest put it, “I hear a lot in this building and in this committee about fiscal responsibility, but I think it is incredibly fiscally irresponsible to continue to shortchange Medicaid and our nonprofits.”
Translation, for many in the General Assembly, blowing past the cap isn’t the problem — it’s the plan.
