With a special session expected in mid-November, progressives are using an emerging funding crisis to revisit Connecticut’s fiscal guardrails and advance other priorities such as health care and affordable housing.
The emergency — triggered by the ongoing U.S. government shutdown, now entering its fifth week — threatens to suspend the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides benefits to nearly 360,000 state residents, with 141,000 children among them. SNAP delivers aid through Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card that access low-income households to purchase groceries.
In response, Gov. Ned Lamont allocated $3 million in state funding to Connecticut Foodshare, a nonprofit organization, to assist residents “who are expected to lose access to food stamp benefits,” according to an Oct. 27 press release.
Bipartisan lawmakers believe the initial funding is inadequate to cover potential shortfalls in SNAP aid. Meanwhile, groups such as the Connecticut Project Action Fund — a social justice organization — are calling for “swift action” on broader policy goals during the anticipated special session. In an advocacy email, the group told supporters: “People are struggling to afford rent, food, and health care. We can’t afford to wait for help, especially when Connecticut is sitting on extra money.”
A special session, however, is intended to address immediate emergencies such as natural disasters, budget collapses, or other time-sensitive crises. The expiration of SNAP benefits on Nov. 1, would certainly qualify. In contrast, debating an omnibus housing package, HUSKY Health expansion, and other long-term spending measures is far less urgent — though worthy of discussion during the regular session.
Why the Rush Before February?
The regular legislative session begins Feb. 4, 2026. So why the push to act sooner? Special sessions typically often involve less transparency, abbreviated timelines, and limited public input — creating fewer opportunities for deliberation or amendment. These conditions make them attractive venues for advancing complex legislation that might face greater scrutiny in a regular session.
To Weaken the Fiscal Guardrails Again?
In 2017, as Connecticut endured a severe budget crisis, the General Assembly enacted fiscal guardrails — a set of spending constraints that reversed decades of pension underfunding, improved the state’s creditworthiness, and saved the state more than $170 million annually in reduced pension debt costs.
These guardrails helped produce six consecutive years of budget surpluses and built a record $4.1 billion ‘rainy day’ fund. That reserve exists precisely for emergencies such as the current SNAP shortfall, allowing the legislature to transfer funds in the event of a “decline in General Fund revenue of at least 1%,” according to the Office of Legislative Research.
Despite this progress, lawmakers weakened the guardrails during the 2025 session by exceeding the state’s constitutional spending cap for the first time in nearly two decades, citing anticipated Medicaid shortfalls. They also shifted $1.2 billion into off-budget accounts, effectively enabling $2.4 billion more in spending than the guardrails would allow.
Nonprofits such as The Connecticut Project advocated for these changes, and many are now pressing for additional spending. It stands to reason that when lawmakers convene for a special session, advocates will likely renew calls to loosen fiscal limits further.
However, doing so carries serious long-term risks. Expanded spending commitments — and the tax increases needed to sustain them — could worsen Connecticut’s affordability challenges, raise property costs, and accelerate the out-migration of residents and businesses. A shrinking tax base would only deepen the fiscal pressures these groups seek to relieve.
Unless carefully limited in scope, a special session could undermine the financial stability Connecticut has worked to rebuild since 2017.
Leave HUSKY and Housing to Regular Session
HUSKY Health — the state’s public health care program — could face adjustments following the passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” in July.
Although the White House has stated there will be “no cuts to Medicaid,” eligibility changes could remove undocumented immigrants from coverage and impose new work and/or volunteer requirements of at least 80 hours a month. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these provisions could result in millions losing coverage nationwide.
Anticipating these changes, Connecticut set aside $300 million to avoid a Medicaid shortfall during the last session — but in doing so, again bypassed the fiscal guardrails.
Advocates, including The Connecticut Project, argue that one in 10 residents roughly 200,000 people — remain at risk of losing coverage. This is a complex issue deserving careful analysis and debate, yet no clear implementation timeline has been released for the federal revisions.
The same caution applies to housing. Connecticut’s prior omnibus housing proposal faced broad public opposition and was vetoed by Gov. Lamont, who called for renewed collaboration with local officials. Since then, the administration and legislative leaders appear to have found more common ground on a new proposal, though few details have been shared publicly.
Even so, housing advocates — and some business groups such as the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA) — warn that the state faces a significant supply shortage. Indeed, Connecticut remains one of the least affordable housing markets in the nation.
However, the state’s 8-30g law, designed to promote affordable housing, has faced criticism for recognizing only government-subsidized or deed-restricted units as “affordable.” This approach excludes naturally affordable market-rate homes from official counts, often misrepresenting local housing realities and penalizing communities already offering affordable options.
In short, both health care and housing warrant months of deliberation and public input — not a rushed debate during special session convened for an immediate emergency.
Good Finances and Good Governance
There is no question that the interruption in SNAP benefits constitutes a genuine emergency. Connecticut should act swiftly to protect vulnerable residents from food insecurity.
However, if a special session is called, lawmakers must maintain fiscal discipline and confine the agenda strictly to this urgent matter. The state’s robust reserves exist precisely because of its commitment to responsible budgeting. Expanding the session’s scope or weakening the guardrails would jeopardize that progress.
Special sessions can lend themselves to closed-door negotiations, limited debate, and expedited votes. Addressing long-term structural issues such as housing or health care under those conditions would undermine transparency and sound policymaking.
Connecticut has spent nearly a decade restoring its financial credibility. A disciplined, narrowly focused special session will ensure the state continues on a path of stability and good governance.
