Bipartisan Budget: Myth vs. Fact


Does the budget decimate UConn/UConn Health Center?

The Republican budget passed with bipartisan support by the legislature provides $1 billion in state aid to UConn and UConn Health Center over two years. This is a $200.1 million reduction to the anticipated $1.2 billion in state aid UConn would have received had the university not been touched by any budget cuts. While this is a cut of approximately 17%, this budget also for the first time allows for purchasing and contracting flexibility so the university can save money and enhance revenues in other ways that do not rely on taxpayer dollars.

There are policy changes that will allow in direct savings for UConn; like requiring professors to teach one additional class and eliminating the tuition waivers that allow UConn and UCHC employees and their dependents to attend UConn for free. Yes there are cuts to UConn, like every other agency. The difference between other state agencies and our flagship university to raise revenue or trim costs are substantial. UConn has alternative ways to support their organization through the school’s Foundation and fundraising or additional federal grants for research. While we have supported large investments over the years, we simply cannot afford it until our state is back on course. UConn still has an extremely healthy budget and now even greater flexibility to attain funding in ways that do not overly burden taxpayers. All of those avenues should be explored fully and pursued.

It’s also important to note that UConn is overstating it’s reductions by using the fiscal year 2017 original budget as the base, rather than what they actually received in 2017. It is only fair to compare the actual dollars taxpayers invested last year.

Does this budget change hospital taxes?

The budget proposed by Republicans and passed with a bipartisan vote in the legislature does not allow municipalities to tax local hospitals and preserves the small hospital pool. It also accepts the hospital settlement agreed to by the Connecticut Hospital Association and the governor’s office which includes tax changes our state hospitals lobbied for and meets all their requests to help them operate more efficiently and better meet the needs of their patients. This budget will also phase out the hospital tax over time and increases Medicaid rates which protect hospitals from changes on the federal level.

What does it do to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)?

The Republican budget that garnered bipartisan support in the legislature would implement a graduated schedule for the Earned Income Tax Credit which provides 5% for single individuals, 10% for those with one child, 15% for those with two children, 25% for those with three or more children. By implementing a graduated scale we can make sure to preserve as much of the credit as possible for those who need the support most. Unfortunately facing a massive deficit of historic size we had to make the difficult decision to reduce this program in part to protect other core social services including SAGA. In addition, there are some who say a case could be made that it is not actually a tax cut, as over 80% of recipients never paid state income tax. Regardless on your opinions about the program–we prioritize children in the graduated scale model we worked hard to define.

Does this budget better serve the I/DD Community?

It is the only budget to fully fund day and employment services for individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. It also does not carry forward reductions imposed by Governor Malloy to employment and day opportunities services for the intellectually disabled. In addition it adds funding to help individuals on the wait list access services.

Is this budget balanced?

Yes, OFA shows surpluses of $70 million surplus in 2018 and $40 million surplus in 2019.

How do we balance the budget?

– We rein in government as much as we can. We consolidate agencies and eliminate top heavy positions like Commissioners and their deputies.

– We make targeted spending cuts while simultaneously protecting core services.

– We implement 10% reductions to certain agency accounts.

– We implement overtime savings of 10 percent, a hiring freeze of non-24-hour employees, and cut the legislature’s budget.

– We include long-needed structural changes to achieve future savings such as a strong spending cap and bonding cap. The Democrat budget included a spending cap which recommends not counting our growing pension debt.

Why does OFA show a deficit in the out years?

All budgets proposed show deficit in the out years because the state’s financial problems cannot be resolved in one year. That being said, the Republican out year deficits are less than what was projected in the Democrats’ budget which includes many new tax policies like cell phones and non-prescription medicine (for example, in FY20 the Republican budget shows $1.2 billion deficit while the Democrat budget shows $1.4 billion deficit. In 2021, Republican budget shows $2 billion deficit while Democrat budget shows $2.1 billion deficit.) However, unlike the Democrat budget, the Republican budget also includes tax reductions to pension income, social security income, and inheritance/estate tax. We have heard our retirees and seniors loud and clear! They want to stay here and we want them here, too. These tax reductions contribute to the deficit on the surface because we are taking in less revenue, but they are likely to actually lower the deficit once implemented by sparking economic growth. In addition, the Republican budget contains a strict spending cap (as voted for nearly 25 years ago, but never enacted) and other long term structural changes to achieve future savings, restore confidence in our state, and therefore have a positive effect on the economy that cannot be calculated by OFA in the projections they show.

Does this budget change taxpayer funding for campaigns?

This budget eliminates taxpayer funding for political campaigns under the “Citizens Election Program” (CEP). The state cannot keep up with managing funds for this program that is a mere shadow of the original program meant to keep elections clean. In an extremely challenging budget year, this budget makes the decision to end taxpayer funding for political candidates – an expense which is expected to balloon to $50 million for the next election cycle with no additional money to be found in escheats which has previously funded the program. Democrats have actually underfunded this program in their own budget proposal by $10 million also putting the program in jeopardy because the state simply does not have the funds to support what this program has grown into.

Does this budget change teacher pension contributions?

This is not a tax on teachers. This budget does increase contributions teachers’ pay towards their own retirement from 6% to 8% at maximum, which remains below the national average of over 10% for teacher contributions. It was important in this budget to minimize the increase while also stabilizing this fund so the state can keep the promises it makes to our teachers who dedicate their lives to serving our state and its students. This is an increase that teachers pay into their own pensions; therefore it is all money that every single teacher gets back when they retire as it is part of their retirement savings. This is money that will be used to make the teachers’ pension plan more solvent and benefit teachers in the long run. In addition, this budget does not shift any teacher retirement costs onto towns and cities. Shifting any portion of this opens the door to more burdens being placed on municipalities and taxpayers. This is the state’s responsibility and we stood firm on not letting the state push off any amount of this obligation onto our cities and towns.

To make sure that the intentions behind the legislation adopted by the General Assembly are crystal clear, since partisan folks are distorting those intentions— the leadership of the Republican caucuses will put a request in writing immediately to the Teacher’s Retirement Board (TRB). While normally the TRB sets the state contribution amount every two years, this is too important to wait for the normal process. The money will be held in the General Fund UNTIL the TRB sets the amount as required.

Our intentions are crystal clear. This money will be deposited to the teacher’s pension fund, as was explained during the budget debate. Period.

Here is a link to the Teacher’s Retirement Systems latest evaluation:…


  • Support the bipartisan budget that gradually increases the pension contributions for teachers 2%, while also keeping the income tax exemption of 50% promised in the last session. This budget also promises level funding for every school district.
  • Support the Democrats proposed budget that passes a significant portion of the teacher’s pension payments to local taxpayers and municipalities. This mandate will force towns to consider laying off teachers or programs and their education funding cuts many communities. It also fails to keep the promise to exempt 50% of their income tax, dropping it down to 25% retroactively to January 1st 2017.
  • Support the Governor’s Executive Order which slashed education funding by almost $600 million and passes the burden of the teacher’s pension fund onto taxpayers.

Local Legislators Hail Passage of Bipartisan Budget


Urge Gov. Malloy to sign budget into law

Hartford – State Representatives Whit Betts (R-78), Cara Pavalock D’Amato (R-77), and William A. Petit, Jr. (R-22) and State Senator Henri Martin (R-31) applauded passage of a bi-partisan budget that avoids new tax increases, preserves core social services, keeps commitments to education, provides stability for municipalities, and rejects Governor Malloy’s proposed shifting of teacher pension costs onto towns and cities.

The budget passed following a remarkable display of bipartisanship from Democrat Senators Hartley, Doyle and Slossberg, who joined their Republican colleagues to vote of 21-15 in favor of the bill. The document was later taken up by the House of Representatives and, after lengthy debate, was passed by a margin of 77 – 73 early Saturday morning.

“I am proud to stand in support of this bi-partisan budget which avoids cuts to municipal aid and school funding and rejects shifting the costs of the teacher’s retirement system on to towns, all of which would have been passed on to our taxpayers in the form of increased local taxes. We have instead provided the state of Connecticut with a plan and a path forward to lift Connecticut out of the fiscal mess we have been in for far too long. The legislature has done its work, and now it is up to the governor to act,” said Rep. Betts.

“This is a great day for the state of Connecticut. The budget that we passed does exactly what taxpayers have asked of us; it does not raise any new taxes and it restores education funding cuts. This plan provides the relief that our middle class and low and fixed income families have been asking for, and I am confident that this budget will put Connecticut on a stronger financial footing. I urge the governor to sign it,” Rep. Pavalock-D’Amato said.

Rep. Petit added, “The budget we passed restores the funding cuts that were made to municipalities and education, and implements the structural changes necessary to stop the fiscal bleeding and cycle of perpetual annual deficits.  It also keeps critical programs in our safety net, which so many of our residents rely on, intact. This budget was endorsed by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, Council of Small Towns and the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, who recognize that this budget will help move us toward prosperity.”

“This budget recognizes that Connecticut cannot survive the tax-and-spend policies of the past. The only way we can move forward is to reduce the cost of our bloated state government and prioritize how we spend taxpayer dollars. Our budget funds those priorities: education, municipalities, services for seniors and those with developmental and intellectual disabilities. I believe this is the path we must take to stabilize the state’s economy,” said Senator Martin.

Highlights of the bi-partisan budget: 

Eliminates Social Security income tax and phases out tax on pension income for middle class
Restores funding for the state’s property tax credit in its entirety to all families and individuals
No increase or expansion of the state’s sales tax
No income tax increase
No new restaurant sales tax
No income tax increase
No secondary home tax
No cell phone tax
No increase to the cigarette tax
No new tax on nonprescription drugs
No new restaurant sales tax
No increase to the pistol permit fee
No increase to the hotel tax
No new fantasy sports tax

The budget moves to Governor Malloy’s desk where it awaits his signature, or sits for 30 days without signature, in order to go into effect.  Should, the governor veto the budget, it would return to the legislature for lawmakers  to either begin the budget process again, or override the veto with a two thirds vote of each chamber.

For more detailed information on the budget proposal, please visit:


Bristol/Plainville Legislators Slam Governor’s Hospital Tax Increase


Proposal would hurt hospital employees, patients

State Representative Whit Betts (R-78), Representative Cara Pavalock-D’Amato (R-77) and Representative William A. Petit, Jr. (R-22) today joined State Senator Henri Martin (R-31) in denouncing Governor Malloy’s proposal to increase the tax on hospitals. They said the brunt of any tax increases would be borne by hospital staff and patients.

While the legislators said eliminating the proposed property tax on hospitals was a positive step, raising the hospital tax does as much damage. Bristol Hospital administrators blame the tax for a $3 million operating loss in 2016.

Sen. Martin said, “The Governor’s proposal is like one step forward and two steps backward. Small nonprofit hospitals like Bristol Hospital are struggling to stay afloat. But instead of throwing them a life preserver, Governor Malloy hands them an anchor.”

In a press conference, the Governor hospitals would benefit from the increase because the state would use the tax money to increase the Medicare rate it pays hospitals. This would result in higher federal Medicaid reimbursements to the state.

Sen. Martin said this is how the Governor first pitched the tax in 2011. However, since then, the hospitals have received less and less money.

Rep. Betts asked why the hospitals and legislators should trust the proposal this time.

“Our hospitals played this game of three-card Monte with Governor Malloy before. Just like any other gambling operation, the house always wins. The money never seems to get where it was promised to go,” Rep. Betts said. “It’s also a gamble for the Governor to think Medicaid payments will increase when the federal government is talking about cutting the program.”

Rep. Pavalock-D’Amato said that, while the Governor thinks he is squeezing money from hospitals, the hospital employees, the patients, and the communities are the ones that suffer.

“It’s the law of unintended consequences and we have seen it happen before,” Rep. Pavalock-D’Amato said. “In a community like Bristol, where our hospital is already operating at a loss, where does the Governor think administrators will get the money for more taxes? The hospital is Bristol’s second largest employer. These people need their jobs.”

Rep. Petit said many patients with private insurance already are struggling to keep up with rising premiums. An increase in the hospital tax will most likely cause an increase in patient costs.

“The Connecticut Hospital Association says the tax is costing patients $650 more each. How much more will this tax increase cost them?” Rep. Petit asked. “What does the Governor expect to happen to these patients when they can no longer afford the care they need?”

The legislators said tax increases like the hospital tax are hurting Connecticut’s economy.

Sen. Martin represents the communities of Bristol, Harwinton, Plainville, Plymouth, and Thomaston.
Rep. Betts serves the communities of Bristol, Plymouth, and Terryville.
Rep. Pavalock-D’Amato serves Bristol.
Rep. Petit serves the communities of Plainville and New Britain.