A series of monetary constraints the Connecticut General Assembly put in place in 2017 have proved to be a remarkable success story.

The administration of Gov. Ned Lamont recently estimated that Connecticut finished the fiscal year that ended June 30 with a $1.6 billion surplus. It continued a string of budgetary surpluses dating to the 2017 reforms. It has been an about-face from the perpetual budget-deficit crises Connecticut had confronted during the prior decade.

The question is whether the “fiscal guardrails” are needlessly constraining? Could they be adjusted to still protect the state’s health, while allowing more money to flow toward state programs or provide further tax relief?

In its most recent session, the state legislature lifted the amount of money that can be set aside as a budgetary reserve from 15% of the General Fund to 18%. The latest surplus will allow the reserve, also known as the rainy day fund, to hit the new max, bringing it to about $4.1 billion. Meanwhile, about half the surplus, $850 million, will go towards paying down state pension debt.

When the next economic downturn hits, as it will at some point, the large reserve will well position the state to weather the storm without deep program cuts.

Additionally, when the latest numbers are finalized, Connecticut will have directed $8.5 billion since 2017 toward reducing its pension debt.

Because of the fiscal controls, and the resulting budget surpluses, credit agencies have boosted the state’s credit ratings, saving Connecticut hundreds of millions of dollars in reduced borrowing costs.

The budgetary reforms, commonly called “fiscal guardrails,” include a tougher budgetary cap to align state spending with personal income and inflation. The rules also call for the legislature to limit borrowing and to build in a small revenue cushion when adopting budgets. Most successful in producing surpluses was enactment of a volatility cap, preventing the legislature from dramatically boosting spending when income tax revenue spikes due to stock market increases.

Enactment of the fiscal guardrails was the result of compromise at a time when the state Senate was split 18-18 and Democrats had only a slim majority in the House of Representatives. Ironically, Democrats have benefited the most politically, now enjoying large majorities in the Senate and House. The continuing budgetary good news will likely help Democrats retain solid control in the November election.

Lamont has resisted calls by some of his fellow Democrats in the legislature to modify the fiscal controls and make more money available to meet health, human services and educational needs. The governor, who is serving a second term and who does not face reelection until 2026 — if he runs — contends the fiscal guardrails are working as intended, leaving no need to adjust them.

A poll this week placed Lamont’s approval rating at 61%, among the highest for governors.

Yet critics have a point when they say something is wrong when social needs are going unmet at the same time the state is enjoying record and persistent surpluses. Conversely, it could be argued that further tax cuts are in order.

It would surely be a mistake to repeal the fiscal constraints adopted in 2017. But an argument could be made for adjusting them, particularly the volatility cap that is responsible for the bulk of the state’s latest surplus.

An election year is a great time to have that discussion.

The Day editorial board meets with political, business and community leaders to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Timothy Dwyer, Executive Editor Izaskun E. Larraneta, Owen Poole, copy editor, and Lisa McGinley, retired deputy managing editor. The board operates independently from The Day newsroom.