As the legislative session approaches its May 6 conclusion, a new national report underscores what many residents already feel: the state’s affordability challenges remain deeply entrenched.  

Despite acknowledging cost reduction as a top priority heading into the 2026 session, lawmakers are advancing policies that risk moving in the opposite direction — potentially worsening the state’s already high cost-of-living and weak economic outlook. 

According to Rich States, Poor States, published by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Connecticut ranks 46th in the United States for its economic outlook and 48th for economic performance. The outlook ranking represents a decline from the previous year and continues a troubling long-term trend.

Over nearly two decades, Connecticut has consistently placed in the bottom tier, averaging around 38th overall. Its highest placement was 32nd in 2009, while it fell as low as 47th in both 2015 and 2016. 

These findings are not an outlier.  

Other national assessments, including the Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index, Wallethub’s rankings for business environment and costs, and CNBC’s 2025 “America’s Top States for Business” report, show similar results. Across these measures, Connecticut consistently underperforms in areas tied to economic competitiveness, including tax burden, regulatory climate, and labor policy. 

Overall, the state imposes high personal and corporate income taxes, maintains one of the heaviest property tax burdens in the nation, and ranks poorly in structural indicators such as estate taxes and labor flexibility.  

Connecticut did post strong GDP growth in 2025, ranking 12th nationally. But that short-term performance masks longer-term challenges. From 2014 to 2024: 

• GDP growth ranked 41st  

• Domestic migration ranked 43rd  

• Non-farm employment growth ranked 45th  

These indicators suggest that while the state can experience periods of growth, it continues to struggle with attracting residents, retaining workers, and expanding its economic base.  

Even within New England, a region known for higher costs, Connecticut trails most of its neighbors: See Table One 

While other states in the region face similar structural challenges, Connecticut’s relative performance remains among the weakest.  

There has been progress. 

Since 2017, Connecticut’s fiscal guardrails have introduced spending discipline, bond rating upgrades, helped reduce pension liabilities, and contributed to the buildup of a $4.1 billion Rainy Day Fund. These reforms also enabled the largest income tax cut in state history. 

However, the state still carries one of the highest debt burdens in the nation, particularly when measured on a per-capita basis. In recent years, adjustments to the guardrails have also raised concerns about maintaining their long-term effectiveness. 

Preserving the core principles of these reforms, disciplined spending, predictable budgeting, and continued progress on long-term liabilities, remains critical to improving the state’s fiscal outlook.  

Strengthening Connecticut’s economic outlook trajectory will require addressing structural challenges in taxation, spending, and regulation.  

Instead, lawmakers are considering proposals that would increase taxes on high earners and businesses, including a potential statewide property tax, higher income tax rates, and a capital gains surcharge.  

These policies carry risks. Connecticut already relies heavily on a relatively small group of high-income taxpayers (2.5%), who account for a disproportionate share of income tax revenue (41%). Increasing that burden further may influence decisions about where individuals live, work, and invest. 

A shrinking tax base would have broader consequences, affecting revenue stability and the state’s ability to fund services.  

Connecticut’s challenges are not new: they are structural and well-documented. 

High housing costs, rising energy prices, and a heavy tax burden continue to drive concerns about affordability. Surveys consistently show residents considering relocation to states with lower costs and stronger economic growth. 

At the same time, population growth in lower-cost states across the South and Southeast reflects a broader trend: individuals and businesses are responding to policy environments that support affordability and opportunity.  

Reversing course will require more than incremental adjustments.  

It will require a renewed focus on fiscal discipline, structural reform, and policies that improve competitiveness, including controlling spending, maintaining effective guardrails, and reducing tax and regulatory burdens. 

Connecticut has seen what works. The challenge now is sustaining and building on those reforms. 

As the legislative session enters its final weeks, the direction is becoming clear: without meaningful structural change, the state risks continuing the same pattern of high costs, slow growth, and persistent outmigration that has defined its economic trajectory for decades. 

The costs of climate change are being borne by those who did the least to cause it. This Earth Day, we should expect more than symbolic gestures. We need our elected officials to stand up to harmful industry influence and deliver policies that hold major polluters accountable.

The effects of climate change have been inescapable across the world, especially in Connecticut. Just last month in March there was persistent unseasonable heat that was so intense that the continental United States registered its most abnormally hot month in 132 years of records, according to federal weather data. And the next year looks to turn the dial up on global warmth even more.

Connecticut residents are now more than ever facing the harmful and costly effects of climate change disasters. These costly disasters and effects have no limits on who is impacted.

A newly published DEEP report showed that climate change had already adversely affected Connecticut residents, businesses, and infrastructure over decades. Extreme weather has cost the state and private sector billions of dollars since 2010. This will continue, according to recent data on climate change.

Between 1880 and 2020, Connecticut experienced climate change impacts, including eight to nine inches of sea level rise; increased coastal erosion, warming of Long Island Sound; warmer hottest and coldest days of the year; increasing annual rainfall; decreasing annual snowfall; and increased rainstorms and flash flooding. In just 2023 and 2024 Connecticut faced multiple extreme weather events from deadly flooding in Southbury, deadly brush fires in Berlin, and millions of dollars of damage to farms from drought.

Let’s be clear, Connecticut taxpayers and residents are paying for 100% of these climate costs, costs that are falling on those least responsible.

Since the 2016 Paris Agreement, just 57 companies are directly linked to 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Carbon Majors Database. These companies include fossil fuel giants like Chevron, Shell, and BP, who raked in record profits in the last quarter of 2023.

Why shouldn’t those most responsible pay their fair share?

Fossil fuel companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year to influence lawmakers and block climate action, because they know real accountability would cost them far more. Instead of paying for the damage their pollution has caused, they’re investing heavily in lobbying and political influence to avoid “polluter pays” policies and shift those costs onto taxpayers.

In light of Climate Superfund laws being introduced in over a dozen states including here in Connecticut, fossil fuel companies are actively shaping climate legislation to shield themselves from accountability. With more than 30 lawsuits filed by states and cities across the U.S., the industry is pushing for legal immunity to avoid paying for climate-related damages. These efforts are aimed at blocking “polluter pays” policies, like climate superfund laws, that would require them to cover the billions of dollars in costs tied to environmental harm, infrastructure impacts, and years of misleading the public.

This Earth Day, we need to flip the script. For too long, fossil fuel companies have pushed the idea that climate change is the result of individual choices, telling us to turn off the lights, take shorter showers, and shrink our personal footprint. Those actions matter, but they’re not the whole story.

The truth is, a small number of corporations are responsible for a massive share of global emissions. While they promote small lifestyle changes, they continue expanding fossil fuel production and investing millions to block meaningful climate policy.

We won’t see real progress until we name what’s actually happening. Accountability must be at the core of climate action, shifting the burden off everyday people and onto the biggest polluters. That means strong policies, real enforcement, and a firm commitment to a “polluter pays” approach. The Connecticut Legislature must act and pass a Climate Superfund bill to move costs off taxpayers and require fossil fuel companies to finally pay their fair share.

Julianna LaRue is an organizer for the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Amtrak says it will not close any railroad bridges along Connecticut’s shoreline during the 2026 World Cup, backing away from a potential proposal that had sparked concerns from boaters, harbor officials, and marine businesses.

In an email Tuesday to NBC Connecticut, Amtrak spokesperson Jason Abrams said: “At this time, in coordination with the Coast Guard, we will not be closing any bridges on the Connecticut Coast Line during the tournament.”

The statement is a shift from a plan previously circulating among members of the boating community. That proposal outlined possible hourslong closures of several movable railroad bridges on the Connecticut shoreline on dates tied to World Cup matches in Foxborough, Massachusetts.

The affected bridges would have included the spans over the Connecticut River, Niantic River, Shaw’s Cove, Thames River and Mystic River.

The proposal had raised alarms among charter boat operators, harbor masters and marine industry leaders, who warned the closures could disrupt navigation during the height of the summer season, create safety risks on crowded waterways and hurt businesses that depend on fishing and recreational boating.