Connecticut state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Connecticut state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Connecticut; a state budget is not the federal budget.
State debt outstanding$33.27BFY2024 · #9 of 50 · highest first
Interest expenditure$1.72BFY2024 · #8 of 50 · highest first
Total state tax collections$23.21BFY2024 · #21 of 50 · highest first
Connecticut over time
Explore Connecticut readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Connecticut officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Connecticut effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Connecticut change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Connecticut government actions Connecticut · source units
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
3 of 3 reviewed Connecticut actions match · 3 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.
How major events are selected
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Connecticut · state comparison
State debt and interest
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
Connecticut · FY2024$33.27B
Connecticut rank#9among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.1TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
State debt outstanding
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · $728.59MHigher value · $166.39BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · $33.27BFY2024 · Rank #9 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
State debt outstanding · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$166.39B
—
#2
New York
$120.59B
—
#3
Texas
$70.05B
—
#4
Massachusetts
$65.87B
—
#5
New Jersey
$57.23B
—
#6
Pennsylvania
$48.67B
—
#7
Illinois
$43.38B
—
#8
Virginia
$33.73B
—
#9
Connecticut · your comparison
$33.27B
—
#10
Ohio
$32.29B
—
#11
Washington
$30.62B
—
#12
Maryland
$25.9B
—
#13
Michigan
$25.02B
—
#14
Colorado
$23.57B
—
#15
Wisconsin
$22.79B
—
#16
Florida
$20.14B
—
#17
Minnesota
$17.03B
—
#18
Oregon
$16.91B
—
#19
Louisiana
$16.09B
—
#20
South Carolina
$15.36B
—
#21
West Virginia
$15.08B
—
#22
Georgia
$14.05B
—
#23
North Carolina
$13.13B
—
#24
Hawaii
$11.72B
—
#25
Rhode Island
$11.41B
—
#26
Alabama
$10.99B
—
#27
Oklahoma
$10.15B
—
#28
Kentucky
$10.08B
—
#29
Tennessee
$9.03B
—
#30
Indiana
$8.52B
—
#31
Iowa
$8.06B
—
#32
Arkansas
$8.05B
—
#33
Mississippi
$7.72B
—
#34
New Hampshire
$7.58B
—
#35
Kansas
$7.16B
—
#36
New Mexico
$7.12B
—
#37
Missouri
$6.99B
—
#38
Arizona
$6.88B
—
#39
Alaska
$5.72B
—
#40
Utah
$5.55B
—
#41
Maine
$5.3B
—
#42
North Dakota
$4.89B
—
#43
South Dakota
$4.67B
—
#44
Delaware
$3.69B
—
#45
Nebraska
$3.39B
—
#46
Nevada
$2.89B
—
#47
Montana
$2.76B
—
#48
Vermont
$2.67B
—
#49
Wyoming
$1.26B
—
#50
Idaho
$728.59M
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
Connecticut · FY2024$6.23B
Connecticut rank#23among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$465.4BSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
General sales-tax collections
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · $0Higher value · $54.35BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · $6.23BFY2024 · Rank #23 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
General sales-tax collections · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
$54.35B
—
#2
California
$53.33B
—
#3
Florida
$40.09B
—
#4
Washington
$22.81B
—
#5
New York
$19.99B
—
#6
Ohio
$16.33B
—
#7
Illinois
$16.05B
—
#8
Pennsylvania
$15.6B
—
#9
New Jersey
$14.31B
—
#10
Tennessee
$14.08B
—
#11
Arizona
$13.16B
—
#12
Michigan
$12.7B
—
#13
North Carolina
$12.16B
—
#14
Indiana
$10.96B
—
#15
Massachusetts
$9.4B
—
#16
Georgia
$9.01B
—
#17
Minnesota
$8.49B
—
#18
Nevada
$8.4B
—
#19
Wisconsin
$7.59B
—
#20
Virginia
$7.4B
—
#21
Maryland
$6.85B
—
#22
South Carolina
$6.44B
—
#23
Connecticut · your comparison
$6.23B
—
#24
Kentucky
$5.8B
—
#25
Missouri
$5.26B
—
#26
Mississippi
$5.07B
—
#27
Arkansas
$5.07B
—
#28
Louisiana
$4.87B
—
#29
Hawaii
$4.79B
—
#30
Colorado
$4.67B
—
#31
Iowa
$4.64B
—
#32
Utah
$4.63B
—
#33
Alabama
$4.59B
—
#34
Kansas
$4.33B
—
#35
New Mexico
$4.33B
—
#36
Oklahoma
$3.81B
—
#37
Idaho
$3.09B
—
#38
Nebraska
$2.97B
—
#39
Maine
$2.35B
—
#40
West Virginia
$1.82B
—
#41
South Dakota
$1.68B
—
#42
Rhode Island
$1.63B
—
#43
Oregon
$1.34B
—
#44
North Dakota
$1.32B
—
#45
Wyoming
$1.01B
—
#46
Vermont
$597.33M
—
#47
Alaska
$0
—
#47
Delaware
$0
—
#47
Montana
$0
—
#47
New Hampshire
$0
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Connecticut appropriations act.
Connecticut · FY2024$4.88B
Connecticut rank#39among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.02TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Public welfare current operations
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · $1.09BHigher value · $156.71BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · $4.88BFY2024 · Rank #39 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Public welfare current operations · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$156.71B
—
#2
New York
$97.35B
—
#3
Texas
$57.32B
—
#4
Illinois
$41.13B
—
#5
Florida
$40.11B
—
#6
Ohio
$39.77B
—
#7
Pennsylvania
$39.34B
—
#8
Massachusetts
$34.12B
—
#9
North Carolina
$30.64B
—
#10
New Jersey
$28.06B
—
#11
Arizona
$26.02B
—
#12
Michigan
$24.37B
—
#13
Virginia
$23.68B
—
#14
Minnesota
$23.37B
—
#15
Indiana
$22.93B
—
#16
Maryland
$21.61B
—
#17
Kentucky
$20.54B
—
#18
Oregon
$20.47B
—
#19
Washington
$19.6B
—
#20
Georgia
$18.99B
—
#21
Louisiana
$18.69B
—
#22
Tennessee
$16.42B
—
#23
Wisconsin
$16.26B
—
#24
Missouri
$15.65B
—
#25
Oklahoma
$14.57B
—
#26
Colorado
$13.6B
—
#27
South Carolina
$12.84B
—
#28
New Mexico
$10.72B
—
#29
Iowa
$10.26B
—
#30
Alabama
$9.73B
—
#31
Arkansas
$8.67B
—
#32
Mississippi
$8.08B
—
#33
Utah
$6.91B
—
#34
Kansas
$6.84B
—
#35
Nevada
$6.62B
—
#36
West Virginia
$6.24B
—
#37
Maine
$5.7B
—
#38
Nebraska
$4.97B
—
#39
Connecticut · your comparison
$4.88B
—
#40
Rhode Island
$4.54B
—
#41
Hawaii
$4.14B
—
#42
Delaware
$3.97B
—
#43
Idaho
$3.73B
—
#44
Alaska
$3.27B
—
#45
Montana
$2.89B
—
#46
New Hampshire
$2.72B
—
#47
Vermont
$2.69B
—
#48
North Dakota
$2.09B
—
#49
South Dakota
$1.95B
—
#50
Wyoming
$1.09B
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
Connecticut · FY2024$21.22B
Connecticut rank#31among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$2.04TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operation expenditure
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Connecticut’s FY2027 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · $4.01BHigher value · $287.03BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · $21.22BFY2024 · Rank #31 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Current operation expenditure · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$287.03B
—
#2
New York
$161.37B
—
#3
Texas
$136.18B
—
#4
Florida
$86.61B
—
#5
Pennsylvania
$77.15B
—
#6
Illinois
$75.67B
—
#7
Ohio
$66.77B
—
#8
New Jersey
$64.53B
—
#9
Massachusetts
$61.38B
—
#10
North Carolina
$59.01B
—
#11
Michigan
$57.27B
—
#12
Virginia
$53.45B
—
#13
Washington
$49.82B
—
#14
Georgia
$45.19B
—
#15
Maryland
$45.06B
—
#16
Oregon
$41.41B
—
#17
Arizona
$38.71B
—
#18
Minnesota
$38.1B
—
#19
Indiana
$37.4B
—
#20
Kentucky
$36.94B
—
#21
Wisconsin
$34.5B
—
#22
Missouri
$34.43B
—
#23
South Carolina
$32.85B
—
#24
Colorado
$32.73B
—
#25
Louisiana
$31.67B
—
#26
Tennessee
$31.12B
—
#27
Alabama
$26.99B
—
#28
Oklahoma
$24.28B
—
#29
Utah
$22.7B
—
#30
New Mexico
$21.94B
—
#31
Connecticut · your comparison
$21.22B
—
#32
Iowa
$19.89B
—
#33
Kansas
$18.39B
—
#34
Hawaii
$16.62B
—
#35
Mississippi
$16.46B
—
#36
Arkansas
$16.28B
—
#37
West Virginia
$13.19B
—
#38
Nevada
$12.43B
—
#39
Nebraska
$10.41B
—
#40
Maine
$10.12B
—
#41
Delaware
$9.24B
—
#42
Rhode Island
$8.93B
—
#43
Alaska
$8.4B
—
#44
Idaho
$8.21B
—
#45
New Hampshire
$7.12B
—
#46
Montana
$6.44B
—
#47
Vermont
$6.28B
—
#48
North Dakota
$5.63B
—
#49
South Dakota
$4.55B
—
#50
Wyoming
$4.01B
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Net appropriations across Connecticut's General Fund, Special Transportation Fund, and other appropriated funds after a $105,710,570 unallocated budgeted lapse. The total excludes non-appropriated accounts, including the Hospital Supplemental Payment account, and separately authorized carryforwards.
Shares of the $24.136 billion in taxes reported as general revenue for Connecticut's primary government. Municipal property taxes are outside this State-government denominator because cities and towns assess and collect them locally.
The Office of Fiscal Analysis's official functional categories before the $105.711 million unallocated budgeted lapse. The gross category total is therefore larger than the net budget headline by exactly that lapse.
Government-wide activity for Connecticut's primary government on the accrual basis. Revenue combines program revenue, taxes, casino gaming payments, tobacco-settlement revenue, lottery tickets, sports wagering, unrestricted investment earnings, and other general revenue; transfers are excluded.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
3 of 3 reviewed Connecticut actions · newest first
Jun 4, 2026 · SB 220 · AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM. · EnactedConnecticut Legislature · SB 220
AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM.
Jun 4, 2026 · Enacted
Rep. Antonio Felipe · Co-sponsored / Rep. Geraldo C. Reyes · Co-sponsored / Rep. Anthony L. Nolan · Co-sponsored / Sen. Eric C. Berthel · Co-sponsored / Rep. Farley Santos · Co-sponsored / Sen. Patricia Billie Miller · Co-sponsored / Rep. Hubert D. Delany · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tom Delnicki · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kenneth Gucker · Co-sponsored / Rep. Christopher Poulos · Co-sponsored / Sen. John A. Kissel · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
SB 220 continues health-plan subsidies for qualifying paraeducators for fiscal 2027 and later years and expressly applies the provision to charter schools. Eligibility remains limited to paraeducators. One route subsidizes deductibles for qualifying public-school paraeducators with health savings accounts or Medicare-eligible high-deductible coverage, subject to employer-contribution offsets, caps and available appropriations. A separate, appropriated premium subsidy offsets paraeducators’ employee contributions in qualifying non-high-deductible plans. Only the under-65 portion relates to this uninsured measure.
Signed by Ned Lamont on 2026-06-04. Public Act No. 26-149. Approval, statutory effective dates, and implementation are distinct; this entry does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
The provision concerns coverage affordability for a limited employee population, including charter-school paraeducators. Its Medicare-related route must not be equated with the under-65 uninsured population, and subsidy authorization does not prove enrollment gains. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Sec. 6. Section 203 of public act 23 -204, as amended by section 124 of public act 24 -81, is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2026): (a) As used in this section: (1) "Health benefit plan" has the same meaning as provided in section 38a-1080 of the general statutes; [,] and (2) "Partnership plan" has the same meaning as provided in section 3- 123aaa of the general statutes. (b) For the fiscal [years] year ending [June 30, 2024, and June 30, 2025] June 30, 2027, and each fiscal year thereafter , the Comptroller shall establish a program to provide a subsidy, within available appropriations, to each paraeducator who (1) opens a health savings account, pursuant to Section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding in ternal revenue code of the United States, as amended from time to time, or is eligible for Medicare and enrolls in a high deductible health plan, and (2) is employed [by a local or regional board of education] in a public school. Such subsidy shall be in an amount up to a certain percentage, as specified by the Comptroller, of the deductible for the health plan in which such paraeducator is enrolled, minus the amount of any employer contributions to a health savings account or health reimbursement account, and not exceeding an amount specified by the Comptroller. No paraeducator may receive Substitute Senate Bill No. 220 Public Act No. 26-149 7 of 8 more than one subsidy pursuant to this section. The Comptroller may work with the local or regional board of education that employs such paraeducator to distribute such subsidy. (c) For the fiscal year ending [June 30, 2025] June 30, 2027, and each fiscal year thereafter , the Comptroller shall establish a program to provide a subsidy, from any funds appropriated for such purpose, to each local or regional board of education that provides coverage to paraeducators and their dependents under a health benefit plan or a partnership plan for such fiscal year or any portion thereof. Such subsidy shall be (1) in an amount not more than ten per cent of the aggregate premium cost, inclusive of the employee and employer shares, paid by such board of education for coverage under such health benefit plan or partnership plan, divided by the number of paraeducators employed by such board of education and enrolled in health coverage, and (2) used to offset the employee's share of such premium that is deducted from the payroll check of each paraeducator employed by such board of education during any pay period during such fiscal year. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a local or regional board of education that provides coverage under a high deductible health plan, as that term is used in subsection (f) of section 38a-520 of the general statutes. Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) of section 10 -66dd of the general statutes, the provisions of this section shall apply to charter schools. [(d) The Comptroller and the Commissioner of Education shall enter into a memorandum of understanding, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 -97b of the general statutes, to allow the Comptroller to utilize the sum of $5,000,000 that is appropriated to the Department of Education for assistance to paraeducators pursuant to section 1 of public act 23 -204 to implement the provisions of this section.]
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 26, 2026 · SB 1 · AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2027, MAKING DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026, AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE AND CONCERNING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REVENUE, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE BUDGET. · SignedGovernor · SB 1
AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2027, MAKING DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026, AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE AND CONCERNING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REVENUE, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE BUDGET.
May 26, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Ned Lamont · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Ned Lamont signed SB 1. Effective July 1, 2026, SB 1 transfers Covered Connecticut Section 1332 waiver authority from the Office of Health Strategy to the Department of Social Services. A proposed waiver requires a report, a joint public hearing and approval by each of three legislative committees within 30 days; inaction by any committee counts as rejection. Implementation requires federal issuance of the waiver. The transfer changes program administration without itself expanding eligibility or establishing waiver approval.
Signed by Ned Lamont on 2026-05-26. Public Act No. 26-68. Approval, statutory effective dates, and implementation are distinct; this entry does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
This is an administrative relationship to subsidized health coverage. Transferring authority does not itself create a program, change eligibility or establish an approved waiver. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(c) (1) The [Office of Health Strategy ] Department of Social Services may, subject to the approval required under subdivision (3) of this subsection, seek a waiver pursuant to Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, as amended from time to time, to advance the purpose of the Covered Connecticut program. The [Office of Health Strategy ] department shall implement such waiver if the federal government Substitute Senate Bill No. 1 Public Act No. 26-68 158 of 745 issues such waiver. (2) The [Office of Health Strategy ] Commissioner of Social Services shall submit a report, in accordance with section 11 -4a, to the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations, human services and insurance containing any proposed waiver described in subdivision (1) of this subsection before seeking such waiver from the federal government. (3) Not later than thirty days after the [Office of Health Strategy ] Commissioner of Social Services submits a report under subdivision (2) of this subsection, the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations, human services and insurance shall convene a joint public hearing on the proposed wai ver contained in the report submitted pursuant to subdivision (2) of this subsection, separately vote to approve or reject such proposed waiver and advise the [Office of Health Strategy ] commissioner of their approval or rejection of such proposed waiver. If any committee takes no action on such proposed waiver within the thirty-day period, the proposed waiver shall be deemed rejected.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 26, 2026 · SB 1 · AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2027, MAKING DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026, AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE AND CONCERNING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REVENUE, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE BUDGET. · EnactedConnecticut Legislature · SB 1
AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2027, MAKING DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026, AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE AND CONCERNING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REVENUE, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE BUDGET.
May 26, 2026 · Enacted
Sen. Martin M. Looney · Co-sponsored / Sen. Bob Duff · Co-sponsored / Sen. Saud Anwar · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jorge Cabrera · Co-sponsored / Sen. Christine Cohen · Co-sponsored / Sen. Mae Flexer · Co-sponsored / Sen. John W. Fonfara · Co-sponsored / Sen. Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox · Co-sponsored / Sen. Herron Gaston · Co-sponsored / Sen. Joan V. Hartley · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jan Hochadel · Co-sponsored / Sen. Paul Honig · Co-sponsored / Sen. Julie Kushner · Co-sponsored / Sen. Matthew L. Lesser · Co-sponsored / Sen. Rick Lopes · Co-sponsored / Sen. Ceci Maher · Co-sponsored / Sen. James J. Maroney · Co-sponsored / Sen. Martha Marx · Co-sponsored / Sen. Douglas McCrory · Co-sponsored / Sen. Patricia Billie Miller · Co-sponsored / Sen. Norman Needleman · Co-sponsored / Sen. Catherine A. Osten · Co-sponsored / Sen. MD Rahman · Co-sponsored / Sen. Derek Slap · Co-sponsored / Rep. Nick Gauthier · Co-sponsored / Rep. Nicholas Menapace · Co-sponsored / Rep. Rebecca Martinez · Co-sponsored / Rep. Travis Simms · Co-sponsored / Rep. Ronald A. Napoli · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jason Doucette · Co-sponsored / Rep. Amy Morrin Bello · Co-sponsored / Rep. Anne M. Hughes · Co-sponsored / Rep. Michael "MJ" Shannon · Co-sponsored / Rep. Anthony L. Nolan · Co-sponsored / Rep. Aimee Berger-Girvalo · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kaitlyn Shake · Co-sponsored / Rep. Corey P. Paris · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jane M. Garibay · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kara Rochelle · Co-sponsored / Rep. Farley Santos · Co-sponsored / Rep. Roland J. Lemar · Co-sponsored / Rep. James Sanchez · Co-sponsored / Rep. Daniel Gaiewski · Co-sponsored / Rep. Aundre Bumgardner · Co-sponsored / Rep. Michael D. Quinn · Co-sponsored / Rep. Laurie Sweet · Co-sponsored / Rep. Patrick S. Boyd · Co-sponsored / Rep. Larry B. Butler · Co-sponsored / Rep. Iris N Sanchez · Co-sponsored / Rep. Gary A. Turco · Co-sponsored / Rep. Hilda E. Santiago · Co-sponsored / Rep. Dominique Johnson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jonathan Fazzino · Co-sponsored / Rep. Derell Wilson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Henry J. Genga · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jaime S. Foster · Co-sponsored / Rep. Mary M. Mushinsky · Co-sponsored / Rep. Hubert D. Delany · Co-sponsored / Rep. Steven J. Stafstrom · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Effective July 1, 2026, SB 1 transfers Covered Connecticut Section 1332 waiver authority from the Office of Health Strategy to the Department of Social Services. A proposed waiver requires a report, a joint public hearing and approval by each of three legislative committees within 30 days; inaction by any committee counts as rejection. Implementation requires federal issuance of the waiver. The transfer changes program administration without itself expanding eligibility or establishing waiver approval.
Signed by Ned Lamont on 2026-05-26. Public Act No. 26-68. Approval, statutory effective dates, and implementation are distinct; this entry does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
This is an administrative relationship to subsidized health coverage. Transferring authority does not itself create a program, change eligibility or establish an approved waiver. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(c) (1) The [Office of Health Strategy ] Department of Social Services may, subject to the approval required under subdivision (3) of this subsection, seek a waiver pursuant to Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, as amended from time to time, to advance the purpose of the Covered Connecticut program. The [Office of Health Strategy ] department shall implement such waiver if the federal government Substitute Senate Bill No. 1 Public Act No. 26-68 158 of 745 issues such waiver. (2) The [Office of Health Strategy ] Commissioner of Social Services shall submit a report, in accordance with section 11 -4a, to the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations, human services and insurance containing any proposed waiver described in subdivision (1) of this subsection before seeking such waiver from the federal government. (3) Not later than thirty days after the [Office of Health Strategy ] Commissioner of Social Services submits a report under subdivision (2) of this subsection, the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations, human services and insurance shall convene a joint public hearing on the proposed wai ver contained in the report submitted pursuant to subdivision (2) of this subsection, separately vote to approve or reject such proposed waiver and advise the [Office of Health Strategy ] commissioner of their approval or rejection of such proposed waiver. If any committee takes no action on such proposed waiver within the thirty-day period, the proposed waiver shall be deemed rejected.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Connecticut officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Connecticut candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
18 statements from 10 candidates
2026 Connecticut Governor — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 3 statements
End the $1 billion hidden tax Ryan discovered as senator. The plan would end or sunset most of the over-50 government programs hidden in the charge and move any remaining necessary programs through the state budget for full transparency.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Economy, jobs, taxes, and affordability
Candidate campaign source
End the $1 billion hidden tax Ryan discovered as senator. The plan would end or sunset most of the over-50 government programs hidden in the charge and move any remaining necessary programs through the state budget for full transparency.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Municipal leaders need certainty when preparing budgets and planning for future expenses to ensure municipal funding is predictable, formula-based, and grows with costs.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: III. Stable and Predictable Funding for Municipalities
Candidate campaign source
Municipal leaders need certainty when preparing budgets and planning for future expenses to ensure municipal funding is predictable, formula-based, and grows with costs.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
I believe in cutting wasteful spending and closing the budget gap. Governors of both parties and legislatures controlled by both parties have maxed out our state's credit cards. Businesses will only come to Connecticut from out of state if we have a predictable budget and a well-governed state. Pass…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Balance the Budget
Candidate campaign source
I believe in cutting wasteful spending and closing the budget gap. Governors of both parties and legislatures controlled by both parties have maxed out our state's credit cards. Businesses will only come to Connecticut from out of state if we have a predictable budget and a well-governed state. Passing a fair and balanced budget that is on time will be my top priority.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
We’ve made real progress, but we have far more work to do to create the Connecticut we all want. I am looking forward to advancing an agenda of fiscal discipline, continuing increased investment in education and infrastructure, creating more financial security for our retirees and those that partici…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Public finance, pensions, and fiscal stewardship
Candidate campaign source
We’ve made real progress, but we have far more work to do to create the Connecticut we all want. I am looking forward to advancing an agenda of fiscal discipline, continuing increased investment in education and infrastructure, creating more financial security for our retirees and those that participate in programs run through the Treasurer’s Office, and doing my part to build a fairer economy that gives Connecticut residents the opportunity they deserve.”
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
Connecticut is one of the most indebted states in America, and taxpayers are paying the price. I believe the Treasurer must be a strong advocate for lowering our debt burden—not adding to it. While others have supported borrowing schemes, I will focus on paying down what we already owe. Fiscal respo…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Public finance, pensions, and fiscal stewardship
Candidate campaign source
Connecticut is one of the most indebted states in America, and taxpayers are paying the price. I believe the Treasurer must be a strong advocate for lowering our debt burden—not adding to it. While others have supported borrowing schemes, I will focus on paying down what we already owe. Fiscal responsibility means saying no to new debt when we’re already underwater.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Connecticut deserves a State Treasurer who puts performance over politics. Our pension system still lags behind national peers, and too often, key investment decisions are made behind closed doors with little transparency or accountability. I’m running for Treasurer because the people of Connecticut…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Public finance, pensions, and fiscal stewardship
Candidate campaign source
Connecticut deserves a State Treasurer who puts performance over politics. Our pension system still lags behind national peers, and too often, key investment decisions are made behind closed doors with little transparency or accountability. I’m running for Treasurer because the people of Connecticut deserve better—better oversight, better returns, and a stronger financial future. With nearly four decades of banking experience and a career rooted in fiscal discipline, I’m ready to bring professional management back to the Treasurer’s Office.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Connecticut’s public pensions remain among the most underfunded in the nation. I support reforms that prioritize stable returns, reduce risk, and strengthen long-term solvency. My decades of experience as a banker and public budget manager give me the practical tools to get this done—unlike career p…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Economy, jobs, taxes, and affordability
Candidate campaign source
Connecticut’s public pensions remain among the most underfunded in the nation. I support reforms that prioritize stable returns, reduce risk, and strengthen long-term solvency. My decades of experience as a banker and public budget manager give me the practical tools to get this done—unlike career politicians learning on the job.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Connecticut candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Connecticut incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Connecticut legislators and Connecticut’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Connecticut’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
0 matching sponsorships or proposals · 0 Connecticut incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
No retained proposals match these filters. A missing record does not mean an incumbent has taken no action.
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us
Only current Connecticut officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Connecticut statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Connecticut snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Connecticut, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.