Connecticut groups want Gov. Ned Lamont to use some of the state's budget reserve to fund social programs.

The state has amassed a more than $4 billion budget reserve in recent years.

But the governor is holding onto the money, saying the extra funds will be needed to bail the state out of any future economic trouble.

Norma Martinez-HoSang - director of the nonprofit Connecticut For All - said she understands that, but said the money could make a real difference.

"In Connecticut, we saw many families suffer from being underinsured or not insured at all," said Martinez-HoSang. "There've been a lot of people not able to afford their rent and even evictions. Our schools have been using ARPA funds since the pandemic - and now, those are ending at the end of the year."

Polls show using these funds to help shore up basic safety-net programs is widely popular with Connecticut voters.

Sixty-three percent say they want the budget reserves to be used for education, health and human services, and other priorities.

Only 8% want all surplus funding to be spent on paying down state employee pension debt. A 2024 report finds overall statewide pension debt is close to $37 billion.

Along with the budget reserve, Martinez-HoSang noted that policymakers could take other steps to make Connecticut life more affordable. One suggestion is to fix the state's 'regressive' tax system.

Studies show low and middle-income earners pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than wealthier residents.

Martinez-HoSang said the state's fiscal guardrails are "out of touch" with people's needs.

"We should find a way to work around them in 2025 - and get rid of them in a few years when they're up again, to be reestablished or to get rid of them," said Martinez-HoSang. "So, those fiscal guardrails are in the way of real investments that our community needs."

Other legislation to handle this issue should come up when the General Assembly reconvenes next year.

Martinez-HoSang said this should involve addressing the state's volatility cap.

This creates a limit on the amount of revenue used to balance the budget. While it's supposed to capture those funds, it has diverted nearly 10 billion dollars in recent years, which can be spent elsewhere.




get more stories like this via email

Indiana lawmakers are considering a bill to allow state funds to invest in Bitcoin.

House Bill 1322 moved forward to the full House for debate.

Rep. Jake Teshka, R-South Bend, authored the bill, which would allow public employee and teacher retirement funds to invest in certain Bitcoin exchange-traded funds.

"Really, what we're asking is just for folks to come and tell us how blockchain technology could benefit state government and state government processes," Teshka explained. "At this point, there is no mandate in here for any agency to participate."

The bill also calls for a study on how blockchain technology could improve state operations. Supporters said it could lower costs, improve security and create efficiencies. Lawmakers backing the bill argued Bitcoin offers long-term potential despite market fluctuations. Opponents have raised concerns about financial risks, saying Bitcoin is unpredictable.

Teshka noted Bitcoin has outperformed traditional assets over time. He admitted it is volatile but called it a strong investment option.

Rep. Chris Campbell, D-Lafayette, called it a major risk for retirees. She questioned how lawmakers could ensure it was a safe investment for state funds.

"When I asked online about cryptocurrency investments, it seemed like they were really discouraged," Campbell observed. "Crypto is volatile and carries substantial risk. There's a lot of scamming associated with it."

Teshka said the state would carefully study the risks before making any decisions. He called Bitcoin the future of finance but stressed Indiana would proceed cautiously. The bill awaits debate in the House.


get more stories like this via email

Lawmakers in Michigan have introduced a package of bills designed to lower costs and expand health care access.

Senate Bill 3 would create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board, made up of experts in economics, health care, supply chain management and academia, with no ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Its aim would be to cut costs and protect people's health and finances, by keeping prescription drug prices fair and transparent.

Sen. Sue Shink, D-Northfield, cosponsored the legislation.

"When I talk to people across my district -- and I spend a lot of time going door-to-door talking to people, asking them what's important to them, what kind of issues are they facing -- 'being able to afford health care' is the most common question I get," Shink reported.

As far back as 2017, it is estimated about one-third of Michigan residents ages 19-64 stopped taking their medications as prescribed because of cost concerns. The new legislation is in the Finance, Insurance and Consumer Protection Committee.

Research shows more than 100 brand-name drugs won't have a money-saving generic available any time soon, and for some, not even for another five years. Prescription drug spending in the U.S. has already topped $603 billion, rising 16% between 2016 and 2021.

Shink argued the proposal would help hold pharmaceutical companies accountable.

"Sometimes the drug companies are just charging too much because they can," Shink asserted. "This board is going to take a look at drug prices, find the outliers and then help resolve the situation."

If the legislation is passed, Michigan would become the seventh state to tackle rising prescription drug costs with a Prescription Drug Affordability Board. Companion bills would ensure doctors and insurance companies abide by the board's decisions.


get more stories like this via email

A January survey of Montanans showed a large majority support workers' rights, even as several bills that could affect them move through the state Legislature.

The bipartisan firm Red America, Blue America Research asked about 500 Montanans their thoughts on labor and found 72% think unions help, rather than hurt, Montana's economy.

John Davis, founding partner of the polling firm, said support was even stronger across more specific questions.

"When we had asked a question about changing laws that would weaken employment protection -- so examples being safe work environments, wages, benefits -- 80% of respondents said they do not support efforts to reduce those protections," Davis reported.

Among respondents, 91% said Montana's workers should be able to join a union if they choose to and 87% said they would be less likely to support a legislator who voted to weaken workers' rights.

The survey also found most respondents were unaware lawmakers are currently considering legislation around allowing highly automated, driverless vehicles to operate on public roads in Montana.

"Driving is a major function of a significant percent of the American workforce," Davis pointed out. "So if that were to change, this would have a direct impact on people's livelihoods."

Of those who responded to the survey, 76% said they would not be comfortable sharing the road with driverless delivery vans.

Jason Small, executive secretary of the Montana AFL-CIO, said the status of union rights is an indicator of all workers' rights in the state.

"When the unions are in there, protecting workers' rights, it's not just the unions themselves they're protecting," Small emphasized. "We are the gold standard and we set the wages and the packages for everybody else. So, if we start to fail, the rest of the workers also begin failing."


get more stories like this via email