Last week's projections of more than a billion dollars in unexpected state government tax revenue over the next two years have strengthened demands for more spending in the last days of the General Assembly's current session. Legislators already had been grabbing furiously at the remnants of federal pandemic emergency aid, and the projections of much more tax revenue have increased pressure for lowering the state's "fiscal guardrails."

The situation is similar to that of state government in the late 1980s, where the state government's budget surplus was greatly enlarged by an inflationary boom and Gov. William A. O'Neill and Democratic legislators rushed to spend it all. Whereupon a devastating national recession struck, bursting the real estate bubble, collapsing banks, and causing bankruptcies, layoffs, and a monstrous state budget deficit. It led to imposition of the state income tax.

Could another economic collapse happen? Indeed, is it already happening?

The stock market, whose capital gains provide much income to the wealthy, the people who pay most of Connecticut's income tax, seems to be stalling out. Large layoffs are increasing in the state's private sector. Housing prices have soared with inflation and already are crushing the working poor. Commercial real estate has crashed under the trend toward working and shopping from home. Homelessness and hunger are rising. The economy is not as strong as elected officials contend, and its next big move is probably down.

That would quickly devour the state's budget surpluses.

Additionally, state government's indebtedness may not have been reduced as much as thought lately. Business consultant and commentator Red Jahncke notes that the extra money placed into state government's pension funds in recent years has been mostly offset by an increase in their obligations. For the big raises bestowed on state employees by the Lamont administration have been "pensionable." That is, the raises have greatly increased the pensions state employees will be owed.

Also arguing for continued restraint in state government's finances are the categories in which there is the most clamor for raising spending: higher and lower education.

Higher education in Connecticut is full of spectacular salaries and frivolity, while higher education generally has been heavily discredited by the college student debt scandal and the debt forgiveness scandal. Higher education is highly overvalued and overpriced.

Lower education long has been Connecticut's much more compelling challenge, since student performance has declined even as per-pupil costs have increased. The situation screams for auditing. But since members of teacher unions receive most education spending and are the state's most influential special interest — the largest element in the political army of the state's majority party — no such auditing is politically possible.

For it simply doesn't matter that increasing education spending does not improve educational results. The main purpose of education spending has become the purchase of political support. Accountability in education is out of the question — not that it figures much elsewhere in state government, where results are seldom gauged against costs.

While some aspects of government in Connecticut might improve with more spending, the more compelling the need, the less influential the advocacy. Self-interestedness rules, as indicated by a recent report by the Yankee Institute's Meghan Portfolio.

Portfolio detailed the support given by state Sen. Jan Hochadel, D-Meriden, to raises for state employees and more education spending even as she also serves as president of the Connecticut chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, a government employee union. This struck Portfolio as a conflict of interest.

Of course Senator Hochadel perceives no conflict among the public interest, the union interest and her personal interest, and many of her constituents were aware of her associations and knew what they were voting for and would probably get. Maybe more should have known but didn't. Maybe they should learn before she seeks re-election this year.

But even if, as H.L. Mencken wrote, "every election is a sort of advanced auction of stolen goods," the thieves don't elect themselves.

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. He can be reached at CPowell@cox.net.