Governor cuts $3.8 million from a $55.8 billion budget: his fellow Democrats howl in anger and despair: “The cupboard is bare — there’s not a penny left to cut.”

He may be looney, but as Senate President Pro Tempore, he runs the charade

Lamont vetoes $3.8M in lawmaker-approved spending, escalating feuding with Connecticut Democrats

The line-item vetoes are the latest development in the ongoing conflict between Lamont and Democrats in the legislature over earmark spending reforms. Lamont recommended across-the-board reductions of 20% to all legislatively directed funds in state agency budgets in the revised $28.7 billion budget for the upcoming 2027 fiscal year he proposed to the legislature on Feb. 4. The recommendations were not well-received by Democrats in the legislature.

A few days earlier, the Lamont administration issued a directive establishing policies and procedures for executive branch agencies to administer legislatively directed funds. The governor subsequently proposed legislation to codify these rules in state statute, and Lamont wanted to incorporate those proposals into the emergency-certified bill only to be rebuffed.

The Government Oversight Committee heard testimony the day before the House considered the emergency bill on a governor’s bill that proposes to require the General Assembly to enact legislation that identifies organizations receiving the earmarked funds, describes how the funds would be used and specifies whether funds could be directed to subgrantees or subcontractors.

The bill would exclude funding for disaster or emergency responses, funding directed to state agencies or municipalities, funding for formula-driven or competitive grant awards, or funding authorized by the State Bond Commission. 

The legislation also would add an annual reporting requirement of the recipients of legislatively directed funds, the administering state agency and the state Office of Policy and Management, the governor's budget office said.

Lamont requested that his recommendations be enacted into law; not a chance in hell.

In a joint statement, Senate President Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, and Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, said the governor’s vetoes are deeply disappointing and “a troubling sign for the trust that must underpin our ability to pass legislation this session.”

Democrats have enough House and Senate members to override the gubernatorial vetoes. The Democrats have 102 members in the 151-seat House and 25 members in the 36-seat Senate. It takes 101 House votes and 24 Senate votes to overturn a veto.

A voice crying in the wilderness

Senate Minority Leader Stephen G. Harding, R-Brookfield, said in a statement Democrats were unable to explain the purposes for the earmark spending Lamont vetoed during last week’s legislative debates and called the legislature’s majority party “an arrogant supermajority.”

Harding said voters need to elect more Republicans to the legislature to shut down what House and Senate Republicans are calling the “candy store” that Democrats have created to support favored organizations and projects, and reward Democratic legislators.

There’s not a chance in hell of that happening either.

Accountability? Not on your life.”

What the new oversight rules would (temporarily) require

• The first step under the latest guidance following the audit directs executive branch agencies to request legislative leadership to provide in writing the legislative intent of the budget earmarks, including whether subgrants are intended or permitted.

• The required documentation includes legal names and addresses of prime recipients and subrecipients, among other information. Recipients and subrecipients must certify they have not been suspended or disbarred from any federal, state, local or tribal programs, awards, contracts, grants or procurements within the last three years, the announcement said.

• They must also disclose any criminal convictions or civil judgments in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain or performing a transaction or contract with any governmental entity, according to the announcement. That would include a violation of federal or state antitrust laws or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records.

• The guidelines advise executive branch agencies to ask prime recipients or subrecipients whether the state has terminated or suspended a contract with the organization over breaches or concerns about the health or welfare of clients. They should also inquire whether the organization is the subject of any investigation by any local, state or federal agency. In addition, state agencies should ask whether the organization has ever declared bankruptcy, owes any local, state or federal taxes, or is in default under any current loan agreement, according to the announcement.

Even this modest proposal — gee, revealing the names and addresses of the people with their hands in their representatives’ pockets? How rude! — would exempt one of the Democrats’ favorite slush funds, the “minority set asides” reserved until last year solely for Blacks and Puerto Rican crooks, but expanded at the demand of two other racial groups, Asians and Pacific Islanders.

The latest oversight directives exclude budget earmarks distributed through the legislative and judicial branches because of the constitutional separation of powers, OPM spokesman Chris Collibee said.

For example, the updated guidelines do not apply to $25.6 million in legislative earmarks included in the current two-year, $55.8 billion state budget to support youth programs because the judicial branch awards those funds. Members of the legislature’s Black and Puerto Rican Caucus and the more recently established Asian American and Pacific Islander Issues Caucus selected the recipients.

Still think a 5-10% “wealth tax” can’t happen here?