What caused the state’s Democratic leaders to wake up this week to the harsh reality the state faces?

It may be the growing realization that their long-held domination of the state Senate and House of Representatives could be at risk in the November election. Voters are in a sour mood, as the presidential primary has shown. In Connecticut, they are particularly bitter that the taxes they pay, no matter how often they increase, never seem to be enough to cover the cost of governance. Meanwhile, General Electric announces it is leaving and the economic recovery lags.

Perhaps those Democratic leaders are awakening to a new numerical and political calculation. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has been driving that point home to his fellow Democrats. Republicans have been saying it far longer. Gimmicks and short-term adjustments will no longer address the budgetary shortfalls the state faces if the trajectory of state spending continues unabated.

Politically and practically, raising taxes is not a good option for the party in power. Politically, a tax hike will supercharge the Republican message that voters need new representation. Practically, it would make Connecticut even less business friendly and drive more people with means to states that provide tax havens, along with better weather.

A week ago, it appeared this “new reality” the governor keeps referencing was not penetrating the Democratic Party’s caucus rooms in Hartford. The legislature cannot achieve the savings necessary to provide fiscal stability without cutting labor costs, and the Democrats did not want to go there.

As I wrote last week, the Appropriations Committee voted not to block the five-year deal that UConn officials had negotiated with the Professional Employees Association, which would increase the work week from 35 to 40 hours while providing raises ranging from 3 percent to 4.5 percent.

Senate members on the committee deadlocked 6-6, while House members voted 24-19 in favor, with Democrats largely voting in approval and all the Republicans against the deal. A week ago it appeared the legislature would let the deal go into effect through its inaction.

In other words, it was business as usual. It has been almost 20 years since the legislature used its authority to reject a contract.

The implications for this passivity went beyond the one deal. The Malloy administration is in wage negotiations with 30 state bargaining units on contracts that expire June 30. Trying to get concessions from any of them after rubber stamping a sweetheart deal with the UConn workers would have been difficult indeed.

After suggestions that this was not a good idea failed to work, Malloy last week got specific.

“Agreements negotiated between labor and management must reflect our new economic reality. This contract, which was negotiated last year, does not,” Malloy said in urging the legislature to reject the deal.

Democratic legislative leaders immediately fell in line.

“We are afraid that, if approved, the contract will lead to massive layoffs and painful tuition increases, forcing talented Connecticut students out of state,” said Senate President Martin Looney of New Haven and Majority Leader Bob Duff of Norwalk in a joint statement.

“Unfortunately, UConn seems to have negotiated this contract without considering the state’s overall budget challenges,” observed House Speaker J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden.

It now seems a matter of when, not if, the General Assembly rejects the UConn deal. This could prove a turning point as Democrats face the reality of having to ask sacrifices of their political allies in labor.

Labor leaders were not happy. Executive Director Sal Luciano, of the 15,000 strong Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees union, called attempts to achieve labor savings “a special tax on middle class and working class state employees.”

Some Democrats, at least, are concluding that assessing that “special tax” on union workers — already better compensated on average than their private sector counterparts — is the preferred option over again raising real taxes on everyone else.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.

p.choiniere@theday.com