In an editorial last week we made the case for calling a special state legislative session to give lawmakers the opportunity to consider alternatives to the devastating cuts Gov. Dannel P. Malloy imposed on hospitals in the state under his executive authority. Less than three months into the fiscal year, the governor cut $63.8 million in state Medicaid funding for hospitals that,  when combined with losses in matching federal aid, will mean a $190 million hit collectively for hospitals across the state, a reduction sure to impact patient services.

Exhibit B in the case for calling lawmakers back to Hartford to adjust the budget, rather than depending on the governor to unilaterally address the fiscal problem, were the cuts in municipal aid announced by the Malloy administration.

The governor imposed what is known in state governmental jargon as “lapses.” These are imagined savings to be achieved by finding ways to improve efficiency, putting off projects, or delaying the filling of vacant positions. When the legislature is having a hard time achieving a budget target, it often gets the numbers to work by projecting savings through lapses.

The Malloy administration is expecting towns and cities to find $14.8 million in savings. In real terms, it will mean the Town of Groton receiving $208,865 less than it expected when preparing its own budget, East Lyme $107,442 less, Norwich $146,635 and New London $95,957, for example.

One problem is that while the administration is leaving municipalities to figure it out, the legislature has refused to provide local officials the tools to do so. Groups like the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and the Connecticut Council of Small Towns say savings can be found if the legislature would eliminate some of the mandates placed on towns and cities, moderate prevailing wage laws that raise the cost of publicly funded construction projects, and reform binding arbitration.

The legislature’s bipartisan MORE Commission (Municipal Opportunities & Regional Efficiencies) has been studying steps to help control spending at the municipal level. Perhaps a special session focused on this issue, along with finding alternatives to simply hitting hospitals with another round of revenue cuts, would focus the legislature’s attention. The Democratic majority could do what it failed to do in putting together this troubled budget -- reach across the aisle to include ideas from the Republican minority.

Some credit is due to the Malloy administration for being proactive. Though the fiscal year is only just getting underway, having begun July 1, there were warning signs, most particularly the recent market turmoil. Connecticut’s chief source of revenue is the personal income tax. In Connecticut the income tax is tied closely to receipts from investment income, due to the investor class that lives in its western suburbs. During market drops, those big investors claim the capital losses, reducing the income tax they pay to the state.

But the governor and Democratic majority left the state vulnerable by anticipating an unrealistic 7.1 percent revenue growth, since downgraded to what is likely a still too optimistic 4.4 percent.

The bottom line is that there was deep skepticism about the budget the legislature approved for the next two years. The fact that so soon after its enactment the governor is taking drastic steps to address problems with the budget shows that skepticism was well deserved and that the legislature may very well need to return to fix it.