State legislators are focused mainly on spending now, trimming their requests to compromise soon with Gov. Ned Lamont on a new two-year budget.
But with just over one week left in the 2025 session, one popular tax-cutting idea is still alive: a new credit for low- and middle-income households with children.
Leaders of the Senate and House Democratic majorities were cautiously optimistic about the child tax credit, though the full program likely would need to be phased in over several years.
The initial $150 per child income tax break under consideration would cost state government $83 million per year, even as looming federal Medicaid cuts could cost Connecticut hundreds of millions in annual revenue. But given the unprecedented surpluses the state has amassed since 2017 and the extremely conservative revenue growth the Lamont administration has projected during its six years, lawmakers say Connecticut can afford this relief.
“We are trying very hard to protect that tax credit the best that we can,” said House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford.
“It still is a reasonable objective,” said Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, who said working families here needed more relief long before President Donald J. Trump and Congress began planning huge cutbacks in Medicaid, food stamps and other social assistance programs.
“The pressures [on working families] are going to be extreme, and we hear all the time about the potential Draconian, punitive choices” federal cutbacks will force upon them, Looney added.
Lamont’s budget spokesman, Chris Collibee, said only that tax proposals remain part of ongoing budget negotiations among the administration and legislative leaders. The governor proposed boosting a different state income tax credit, one that offsets a portion of municipal property tax bills, from $300 to $350, while also broadening eligibility.
Connecticut is the only state with a broad-based personal income tax that doesn’t account for the cost of raising children. Many Democratic lawmakers here largely have endorsed offering a $600-per-dependent credit with relief capped at $1,800 per household.
But because of the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, the General Assembly’s Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee endorsed a less costly $150-per-child credit starting with 2025 earnings and tax returns filed in the spring of 2026, with a maximum household benefit of $450.
It would be available to single parents earning up to $100,000 per year and couples earning up to $200,000, starting with 2026 earnings.
The credit would be gradually phased out above those income levels. For every $1,000 earned above those thresholds, households would lose 10% of the credit’s value.
The credit also would be refundable. Even if a household earns so little it has no state tax liability to reduce via the credit, it still would have $150 per child added to its refund.
Nonpartisan analysts project this tax break would cost government about $83 million per year, about the same as Lamont’s plan to expand the property tax credit. It’s also roughly one-quarter of what legislators anticipate the state would lose with a full $600-per-child benefit.
And while the finance committee measure wouldn’t order increases in the credit in future years, many supporters say proposals to increase the credit would enjoy strong backing down the road.
Rep. Jillian Gilchest, D-West Hartford, co-chairwoman of the Human Services Committee and another backer of the $600-per-child benefit, predicted most Democrats won’t be satisfied for long with “an austere child tax credit” given likely federal cutbacks in health and human service programs.
“More people are going to feel the pain of these [federal] budget decisions,” she said.
Reformers have been clamoring for a child credit in recent years as public and private analyses show Connecticut’s state and municipal tax systems, combined, disproportionately burden the poor and middle class.
The Department of Revenue Services’ 2024 report found the lowest-earning 10% of households effectively spent almost 40% of their income in 2020 to cover state or municipal tax burdens, more than five times the rate faced by Connecticut’s highest earners and two-and-a-half times the statewide average.
Even one of the largest state tax cuts in 2023, which included the first income tax rate reduction since the mid-1990s, only slowed — but didn’t reverse — the ever-widening shift onto working families, according to a 2024 analysis from Connecticut Voices for Children, a progressive New Haven-based policy group.
The United Way of Connecticut, one of the progressive groups spearheading this year’s push for a child tax credit, released a report last October showing that a family of four — two parents and two children — needed to earn $113,520 in 2022 in this state to cover a basic “survival budget.”
The United Way’s methodology covers housing, food, utilities, transportation, child care and — assuming the family can’t afford a computer — at least one smart phone. By comparison, the Federal Poverty Level, a simple metric developed in the mid-1960s by U.S. Social Security Administration economists and based largely on the cost of a minimum food diet, said a family of four earning more than $27,750 in 2022 was above the poverty line.
“On a good day, 42% of Connecticut families with children struggle to make ends meet,” said Lisa Tepper Bates, president of the United Way’s Connecticut chapter. “The proposed cuts to Medicaid and SNAP will hit many Connecticut families hard. And ongoing economic upheaval and rising prices affect every family in our state. Creating a Connecticut child tax credit has never been more important.”
Legislators also were optimistic that Connecticut could afford to provide a child tax credit, even given the uncertainty of federal funding, given its budget caps and its track record of projecting revenues since Lamont took office in 2019.
These caps have generated surpluses averaging $1.8 billion, an amount equal to 8% of the General Fund, since they last were set in 2017. The administration is projecting a $2.4 billion surplus this year, equal to 10%. Analysts project budget caps will capture at least about $1.3 billion in each of the next two fiscal years.
Connecticut has funneled $12.5 billion in surpluses since 2017 to build reserves and scale back pension debt, a furious pace that far outstrips any similar effort in modern history.
Critics say the state has overcompensated for fiscal mistakes of prior decades and is saving excessively now at the expense of core programs and tax relief for the poor and middle class.
The state also has been extremely conservative in its revenue projections in recent years.
Legislators largely build the budget each year using an April 30 forecast prepared by their nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis and by the governor’s budget staff. The basis for that forecast is income and other tax data provided by the administration, particularly the Department of Revenue Services.
Connecticut has amassed large surpluses in each of Lamont’s six years in office. Most of those surpluses turned out to be significantly larger than projected on April 30. The state’s fiscal year ends June 30, and the comptroller formally closes the books in late September.
Since Lamont has been governor, the actual surplus has topped the April 30 projection by an average of $600 million per year.
But 2020 and 2021 were outliers. The coronavirus led officials to push the 2020 income tax filing deadline back from Apil 15 to July 15. And in 2021 they moved it to May 15. In both cases, that meant analysts had limited data to build their projections.
But even if those two fiscal years are removed, the average increase in surplus after the April 30 projection has been $375 million.
“I believe it’s realistic to continue to talk about a phase-in” of a larger child tax credit, Looney said, noting that the average surplus in recent years far exceeds the cost of helping working families.
It’s a scheme made famous by a nearly 30-year-old episode of the sitcom Seinfeld.
Hoping to earn a quick buck, two characters load a mail truck full of soda bottles and beer cans purchased with a redeemable 5-cent deposit in New York, before traveling to Michigan, where they can be recycled for 10 cents apiece. With few thousand cans, they calculate, the trip will earn a decent profit. In the end, the plan fell apart.
But after Connecticut raised the value of its own bottle deposits to 10 cents in 2024, officials say, they were caught off guard by a flood of such fraudulent returns coming in from out of state. Redemption rates have reached 97%, and some beverage distributors have reported millions of dollars in losses as a result of having to pay out for excess returns of their products.
On Thursday, state lawmakers passed an emergency bill to crack down on illegal returns by increasing fines, requiring redemption centers to keep track of bulk drop-offs and allowing local police to go after out-of-state violators.
“I’m heartbroken,” said House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, who supported the effort to increase deposits to 10 cents and expand the number of items eligible for redemption. “I spent a lot of political capital to get the bottle bill passed in 2021, and never in a million years did I think that New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island residents would return so many bottles.”
The legislation, Senate Bill 299, would increase fines for violating the bottle bill law from $50 to $500 on a first offense. For third and subsequent offenses, the penalty would increase from $250 to $2,000 and misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison.
In addition, it requires redemption centers to be licensed by the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (previously, those businesses were only required to register with DEEP). As a condition of their license, redemption centers must keep records of anyone seeking to redeem more than 1,000 bottles and cans in a single day.
Anyone not affiliated with a qualified nonprofit would be prohibited from redeeming more than 4,000 bottles a day, down from the previous limit of 5,000.
The bill also seeks to pressure some larger redemption centers into adopting automated scanning technologies, such as reverse vending machines, by temporarily lowering the handling fee that is paid on each beverage container processed by those centers.
The bill easily passed the Senate on Wednesday and the House on Thursday on its way to Gov. Ned Lamont.
While the bill drew bipartisan support, Republicans described it as a temporary fix to a growing problem.
House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, called the switch to 10-cent deposits an “unmitigated disaster” and said he believed out-of-state redemption centers were offloading much of their inventory within Connecticut.
“The sheer quantity that is being redeemed in the state of Connecticut, this isn’t two people putting cans into a post office truck,” Candelora said. “This is far more organized than that.”
The impact of those excess returns is felt mostly by the state’s wholesale beverage distributors, who initiate the redemption process by collecting an additional 10 cents on every eligible bottle and can they sell to supermarkets, liquor stores and other retailers within Connecticut. The distributors are required to pay that money back — plus a handling fee — once the containers are returned to the store or a redemption center.
According to the state’s Department of Revenue Services, nearly 12% of wholesalers reported having to pay out more redemptions than they collected in deposits in 2025. Those losses totaled $11.3 million.
Peter Gallo, the vice president of Star Distributors in West Haven, said his company’s losses alone have totaled more than $2 million since the increase on deposits went into effect two years ago. As time goes on, he said, the deficit has only grown.
“We’re hoping we can get something fixed here, because it’s a tough pill to be holding on to debt that we should get paid for,” Gallo said.
Still, officials say they have no way of tracking precisely how many of the roughly 2 billion containers that were redeemed in the state last year were illegally brought in from other states. That’s because most products lack any kind of identifiable marking indicating where they were sold.
“There’s no way to tell right now. That’s one of the core issues here,” said state Rep. John-Michael Parker, D-Madison, who co-chairs the legislature’s Environment Committee.
Parker said the issue could be solved if product labels were printed with a specific barcode or other feature that would be unique to Connecticut. Such a solution, for now, has faced technological challenges and pushback from the beverage industry, he said.
Not everyone involved in the handling, sorting and redemption of bottles is happy about the upcoming changes — or the process by which they were approved.
Francis Bartolomeo, the owner of a Fran’s Cans and Bart’s Bottles in Watertown, said he was only made aware of the legislation on Monday from a fellow redemption center owner. Since then, he said, he’s been contacting his legislators to oppose the bill and was frustrated by the lack of a public hearing.
“I know other people are as flabbergasted as I am because they don’t know where it comes out of,” Bartolomeo said “It’s a one sided affair, really.”
Bartolomeo said one of his biggest concerns with the bill is the $2,500 annual licensing fee that it would place on redemption centers. While he agreed that out-of-state redemptions are a problem, he said it should be up to the state to improve enforcement.
“We’re cleaning up the mess, and we’re going to end up being penalized,” Bartolomeo said. “Get rid of it and go back to 5 cents if it’s that big of a hindrance, but don’t penalize the redemption centers for what you imposed.”
Lynn Little of New Milford Redemption Center supports the increased penalties but believes the solution ultimately lies with better labeling by the distributors. She is also frustrated by the volume caps after the state initially gave grants to residents looking to open their own bottle redemption businesses.
“They’re taking a volume business, because any business where you make 3 cents per unit (the average handling fee) is a volume business, and limiting the volume we can take in, you’re crushing small businesses,” Little said.
Ritter said that he opposed a move back to the 5-cent deposit, which he noted was increased to encourage recycling. However, he said the current situation has become politically untenable and puts the state at risk of a lawsuit from distributors.
“We’re getting to a point where we’re going to lose the bottle bill,” Ritter said. “If we got sued in court, I think we’d lose.”
NEW BRITAIN, CT — Stanley Black & Decker on Thursday said it has decided to close its manufacturing facility in New Britain.
Debora Raymond, vice president of external communications for the manufacturer, said the decision is a result of a “structural decline in demand for single-sided tape measures.”
The New Britain facility predominantly makes these products, according to Raymond.
“These products are quickly becoming obsolete in the markets we serve,” Raymond said, via an emailed statement Thursday.
The decision is expected to impact approximately 300 employees, according to Raymond.
“We are focused on supporting impacted employees through this transition, including providing options for employment at other facilities, severance, and job placement support services for both salaried and hourly employees,” Raymond said.
As of Thursday at 4:30 p.m., no Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act notice had been filed with the state Department of Labor.
The company’s corporate headquarters remains at 1000 Stanley Dr., New Britain.
Gov. Ned Lamont released the following statement on the decision:
“Although Stanley has made the decision to discontinue operations for manufacturing outdated products, a change in workforce opportunities is difficult for employees, their families, and any community.,” Lamont said. “However, I am hopeful that these skilled workers will be repurposed with the help of Stanley Black & Decker, a company that will still proudly be headquartered here in Connecticut. My administration is working closely with local and state leaders to support affected workers and to reimagine the factory site so it can continue to create opportunity and strengthen New Britain’s economic future.”
New Britain Mayor Bobby Sanchez said he is “deeply disappointed” the company will be closing its Myrtle Street operations.
“For generations, Stanley Works has been part of the fabric of our city, providing good-paying jobs, supporting families, and helping build New Britain’s proud reputation as the ‘Hardware City,’” Sanchez said.
According to the mayor, his office’s immediate focus is on helping affected workers and their families. The mayor has been in contact with Lamont’s office, and they will be working closely to make sure employees have access to job placement services, retraining opportunities and support, Sanchez said.
“We will continue aggressively pursuing economic development opportunities and attracting businesses that are looking for a true community partner, a city ready to collaborate, innovate and grow alongside them,” Sanchez said. “New Britain has reinvented itself before, and we will do so again.”
Stanley Black & Decker, founded in 1843, operates manufacturing facilities worldwide, according to its website. It reports having 43,500 employees globally, and makes an array of products, such as power tools and equipment, hand tools, and fasteners.
Newly released police video shows former WWE executive Vince McMahon ram his luxury sports car into the rear end of another vehicle on a Connecticut highway last summer as he was being followed by a state trooper.
McMahon, now 80, was driving his 2024 Bentley Continental GT at more than 100 mph on the Merritt Parkway when he crashed in the town of Westport, according to state police.
A trooper’s dashcam video shows McMahon accelerating away, then braking too late to avoid crashing into the back of a BMW. The Bentley then swerves into a guardrail and careens back across the highway, creating a cloud of dirt and car parts.
“Why were you driving all over 100 mph?” state police Detective Maxwell Robins asked McMahon after catching up to the wrecked Bentley, which can cost over $300,000.
“I got my granddaughter’s birthday” McMahon replied, explaining he was on his way to see her. The encounter was recorded on police bodycam video.
No one was seriously injured in the July 24 crash, which happened the same day that WWE legend Hulk Hogan died of a heart attack in Florida.
Besides damage to the rear of the BMW, another vehicle driving on the opposite side of the parkway was struck by flying debris. The driver of that third car happened to be wearing a WWE shirt, according to the police video.
McMahon was cited for reckless driving and following too closely. A state judge in October allowed McMahon to enter a pretrial probation program that will result in the charges being erased from his record next October if he successfully completes the program. He was also ordered to make a $1,000 charitable contribution.
McMahon’s lawyer, Mark Sherman, said the crash was just an accident.
“Not every car accident is a crime,” Sherman said. “Vince’s primary concern during this case was for the other drivers and is appreciative that the court saw this more of an accident than a crime that needed to be prosecuted.”
State police said Robins was trying to catch up to McMahon on the parkway and clock his speed before pulling him over. They said the incident was not a pursuit, which happens when police chase someone trying to flee officers. They also said it did not appear McMahon was trying to escape — though in the video the detective suggests otherwise.
“I’m trying to catch up to you and you keep taking off,” Robins says.
“No, no no. I’m not trying to outrun you,” McMahon says.
An accident information summary provided to the media shortly after the crash did not mention that a trooper was following McMahon.
The Associated Press obtained the videos Wednesday through a public records request. They were first obtained by The Sun newspaper.
The trooper’s bodycam video also shows him asking McMahon whether he was looking at his phone when the crash happened. McMahon said he was not and adds that he hadn’t driven his car in a long time.
After Robins tells McMahon that his car is fast, McMahon replies, “Yeah, too (expletive) fast.”
The videos also show McMahon talking to the driver he rear-ended. Barbara Doran, of New York City, told the AP last summer that McMahon expressed his concern for her and was glad she was OK. She said she was heading to a ferry to Martha’s Vineyard at the time of the crash.
After McMahon was given the traffic summons, he shook hands with Robins and another trooper and they wished him well.
McMahon stepped down as WWE’s CEO in 2022 amid a company investigation into sexual misconduct allegations. He also resigned as executive chairman of the board of directors of TKO Group Holdings, the parent company of WWE, in 2024, a day after a former WWE employee filed a sexual abuse lawsuit against him. McMahon has denied the allegations. The lawsuit remains pending.
McMahon bought what was then the World Wrestling Federation in 1982 and transformed it from a regional wrestling company into a worldwide phenomenon. Besides running the company with his wife, Linda, who is now the U.S. education secretary, he also performed at WWE events as himself.
Exclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
Mother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
Wildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
YouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
Stellantis is in a crisis of its own making
OpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
