Log In


Reset Password
  • MENU
    Columnists
    Sunday, May 12, 2024

    Foundation of Lamont’s budget may crumble

    Gov. Ned Lamont made much of delivering a budget on time. But there’s a big problem; it wasn’t balanced and still isn’t.

    Connecticut citizens may recall that Governor Lamont promised hundreds of millions in savings in the budget from a reduction of the state’s contribution to the State Employees Retirement fund (SERS), without much mentioning that this entails even greater overall pension contributions over the 35-year span of amortization.

    This scheme is a classic case of kicking the can down the road, with the can getting bigger in the process. Nevertheless, this past Thursday the governor announced triumphantly that he had union approval of the scheme, which “saves” about $270 million in the current two-year budget and roughly another $1.6 billion through 2032, but increases costs by almost $5 billion from 2032 to 2047.

    The reason the scheme required union approval is that SERS is already drastically underfunded, with assets of only about $13 billion against an estimated liability of about $34 billion. Reducing current contributions exacerbates this severe underfunding, putting retiree benefits in potential jeopardy. Last fiscal year, SERS cash flow was negative, with benefit payments exceeding state contributions by about one-half billion dollars before stock market gains.

    In February, Lamont also promised actual labor savings. Union bosses slapped down that idea, saying they wouldn’t make any concessions. Nevertheless, Lamont included hundreds of millions of these savings in his now-official budget. So far there’s no word of union approval, without which the budget is in deficit. After agreeing to the risky re-amortization, union approval isn’t likely.

    Another open item in the official budget is the outcome of the long-running litigation with the state’s hospitals. Lamont claims to have reached a settlement. He has reserved about $160 million in the budget for a settlement payment to the hospitals.

    The hospital tax is a highly complex affair. However, the apparent $160 million settlement seems a low amount given that Lamont is extending the hospital tax at $900 million per year, reneging on the commitment of his predecessor, Democrat Dannel Malloy, to reduce it to $385 million annually.

    While the hospitals will not have to pay the full $515 million difference (the federal government will absorb most of it), they will have to shoulder about $185 million.

    Why would the hospitals settle their lawsuit for a mere $160 million for past damages, when Lamont is inflicting $370 million in unexpected costs over the next two years? There may be other sweeteners (at what cost and in what budget years). We’ll find out when, as and if the settlement is finalized and the terms are announced.

    No wonder Lamont is looking desperately for additional sources of revenue, focusing primarily upon his tolls proposal, surely an ill-fated idea at this point with polls showing about 60% of citizens opposed.

    Why ill-fated? Because neither anti-toll Democrats in the General Assembly nor federal officials are likely to approve anything but a drastically scaled back tolling scheme. That wouldn’t produce much revenue and wouldn’t arrive for five years. By that time, the huge $5 billion-larger pension “can” won’t be far down the road anymore.

    Tolls would face federal skepticism because the federal government doesn’t want states erecting tolls on interstate highways just because they want more revenue. The interstate highway system was built to facilitate transportation, not as a funding mechanism for the states. So, the federal government gives states more federal highway construction funds if they don’t erect tolls, and less if they do.

    Little attention has been focused upon this reality in the raging debate about tolls. In contrast, tremendous emphasis has been put upon the notion that out-of-state drivers would pay anywhere from 30% to 40% of toll charges. It is not clear that the state would come out ahead in the other-people’s-money game, with reduced federal funding offsetting some or all of toll payments from out-of-state drivers.

    The primary exception to long-standing federal anti-tolls policy is an experimental pilot program for tolling systems with congestion pricing, which, of course, must be installed in congested areas. In Connecticut that means primarily lower Fairfield County, since most of I-84 and I-91 and the eastern section of I-95 are seldom congested.

    Even a much reduced tolls scheme installed only in lower Fairfield County would need friends in Washington to be approved. Does Connecticut have any friends in Donald Trump’s Washington?

    Lamont’s current budget relies on several still-open items. His future budgets rely on an unlikely tolls plan that, even if approved, would be scaled back drastically and produce little revenue. To say that Connecticut’s finances rest on an extremely shaky foundation is an understatement.

    Red Jahncke (Twitter: @RedJahncke) is president of The Townsend Group Intl. LLC, a Connecticut business consulting firm.

    Comment threads are monitored for 48 hours after publication and then closed.