More Transparency Needed in Connecticut State Budgeting
August 21, 2022
Last April, Governor Lamont and the continuous Democratic majority in the legislature announced that they reached a new $24.2 billion budget deal that replaced the budget that was already in place for the current fiscal year (FY 23) which began on July 1. The budget that was passed last year for FY 23 was $878.2 million higher than was budgeted for FY 22. The new budget deal added $574.4 million in appropriations for FY 23, resulting in total appropriations that were higher by $1.45 billion (6.4%) over FY 22.
Reasonable people can disagree about the proper size and contents of a budget and tax package, but the non-transparent manner in which such budget deals are reached should be rejected by anyone interested in good government. These deals are negotiated in secret by top legislative leaders, the Governor, and a few staff (all Democrats). This year’s deal, Public Act 22-118, was a huge omnibus bill that included appropriations (spending), finance (taxes, revenue and capital spending/bonding), and “implementer” language (statutory changes needed enable the spending/taxes/bonding) that was 739 pages long – and this was in a short session for an unnecessary budget when the same tortuous process had already occurred for funding FY 23 last year.
Connecticut’s biennial budget requirement, reinstituted in 1991, requires the legislature to pass a two-year budget. The legislature has complied with this requirement but almost always has passed a new/revised budget for the second year to replace the one that had been passed just a year before, usually to spend more and add political goodies that is the lifeblood of politics.
Due to the constant flux of negotiations on the provisions of these bills which grow steadily in volume as time goes on, along with the complexity, opaqueness and lack of permitted time for review, no one fully understands all of the provisions in these bills, including those who actually negotiate them.
The title of this year’s bill, “An Act Adjusting the State Budget for the Biennium ending June 30, 2023, Concerning Provisions Related to Revenue, School Construction and other Items to Implement the State Budget and Authorizing and Adjusting Bonds of the State,” is imprecise at best since this bill (like such every year) is full of items that have nothing to do with implementing the budget and everything to do with providing a benefit to important legislators, lobbyists, or favored special interest groups. At the least, the bill’s title should end with “and other Provisions,” although “and Pile of Pork and Rats,” is more fitting.
“Pork” is usually understood to be for the benefit of a legislative district so that the legislator representing that district can be recognized for bringing home the bacon. Certainly, budgets and the rest of these bills have many traditional pork provisions but there are plenty of financial and legal benefits for special interest groups that will support a legislator’s re-election with campaign help and donations, and probably have already. It’s a chicken and egg situation, which comes first, donations to get pork, or the pork to get donations? Unlike the poultry question, it works both ways.
“Rats,” on the other hand, are less common and are mysterious items that are snuck into bills usually during the last session days when members are tired and attention is stretched. These provisions are pork-like except that the stereotypical Rat, is a head scratcher to most any reader and designed to be opaque to slip under the radar. The language is usually narrowly drafted so that the benefit it confers falls almost exclusively to one or a few people or organizations.
A proper understanding of bills of this size and complexity would take weeks if not months, but these bills are dropped on the desks of legislators for a vote the same day in one chamber (House or Senate) followed by a vote the same or next day by the other chamber. The legislative majority caucus members get a short, basic, high-level, rosy, briefing before-hand along with confirmation of special provisions for various inquiring legislative members to ensure enough support for passage. The minority party gets much less information, why bother since they do not have enough votes to affect the outcome? The people that fill the Capitol halls have insider methods of routinely obtaining information about these bills through legislators or staff often even before individual legislators.
Meanwhile the public gets some basic, cherry picked, “he said, she said,” hastily slapped together news reporting that can’t help but repeat many of the intended talking points of both sides. Every year it’s the same, the majority claims its budget package is great for “working families,” etc. while the minority claims the opposite. This happens every year because: 1) the legislature lacks the discipline to set deadlines for themselves (while passing law after law that contain deadlines and penalties for the public); and 2) it is intentionally done this way to prevent as little light being shown on the content of these bills in order to decrease any potential nay-saying.
Another way to prevent meaningful understanding of budget bills when they are presented for a vote is to prohibit the provision of standard documentation/information/detail. The Governor’s budget bill proposal for example, which is released every February (no one takes the biennial budget requirement seriously), is accompanied by large amounts of published detail (book-size) including an Economic Report and a Three Year Out Year Report prepared by the Governor’s budget office. The Appropriations Committee budget which is voted out of committee every April or May also contains large amounts of detail and explanation prepared by the legislature’s nonpartisan budget office. This detail is provided for both of these budget proposals even though these are always dead on arrival pending the final budget negotiation process. It is impossible to understand the budget without this information since budget bills contain lump sum levels of appropriations by agency and account without any explanation. It’s like buying a book and only getting the table of contents.
Rank and file legislators of both parties routinely complain about this rushed vote requirement imposed on them by legislative leadership. Democrats complain about legislative leadership coercing them into voting for packages they may not like and can’t really understand with the dearth of information. Meanwhile, Republicans naturally claim about being excluded just about altogether. Over the years, when presented with the option of preparing documentation for legislative members to review in order for them to vote knowledgeably, legislative leadership has, well, declined.
Democrats have controlled the State House and Senate since 1992 (except for a Republican Senate in 1995-1996). There have been Republican governors from 1995-2011. Although, the Governor does not control the legislature or have direct responsibility for its functioning, Republicans in the legislature could have acted in concert with Republican gubernatorial pressure to achieve better information, but that did not occur. Republicans seem to have generally resigned themselves to their minority status in modern day Connecticut and wish to go along to get along, avoid any criticism of “extremism,” protest where necessary, and prepare for the next election cycle.
Power corrupts. Self-serving budget making in the hands of a few legislators and staff without oversight of other legislators, let alone the public, is a predictable corruption that flows from unchecked power concentration. This can be easily changed if there was the will to do so.