[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6595011,"mediaKeyId","3043711-d76569eac515db6a00821d0e321dac84","parentId",3043711,"title","Parents, child advocates urge Connecticut to adopt refundable child tax credit; bill would index income tax and create credit","audioSeconds",780,"startMs",3386000,"endMs",2606000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3043711-d76569eac515db6a00821d0e321dac84&start=3386&end=2606","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3043711-d76569eac515db6a00821d0e321dac84/thumbnail_3386000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6595011/Connecticut/Parents-child-advocates-urge-Connecticut-to-adopt-refundable-child-tax-credit-bill-would-index-income-tax-and-create-credit","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6595011-2e048f53ab8889ac9cd6a6d0800bad24/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185234&Signature=kIo1RoaGA0JUGLfyARdBSVpJuthfbGX8mDYSkJfiumyLmLySke0BzO01NtW9wmIxFmob7Xd6FgS9CG5qOQv2y18wMrH9r1~yAh9mMOyqHGsWitzg8YuqkCkUTV64kZAd3ZTn-3b1rZRMAlXU~aZlekZmzN5fcJSHQhZVBzmRjpP36UA6iB~1HCTfF3HVSvwvVfhDRxPXUHk3hLEyxvnFmECSwhse9F6I7LxHpSh2wemhspEPrFtQzb~AFsN2CYHGsnkjejZVfyjBMDx7aj5U6gk-s6nzjmHOkGa6uBNY2P4MxhR-b8Jjqu0Nhn9S4PNamBWhZ8dMOsZps3NOhX7Giw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Connecticut State Legislature - Finance Revenue & Bonding Committee","date","2025-04-14T23:56:54.76Z","article","Hundreds of residents and several advocacy organizations testified before the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee supporting a proposal to create a refundable Connecticut child tax credit and to index the state personal income tax to inflation. Proponents included parents, child‑poverty researchers, community foundations, and statewide advocacy coalitions who said the proposals would provide predictable relief to low‑ and middle‑income families.

Nut graf: Supporters described HB 7272 as a targeted anti‑poverty measure that would give funds directly to households with children and stimulate local spending; many urged a higher per‑child amount than the $150 in the draft bill — coalition advocates recommended a phase‑in to $500–$600 per child to lift more children out of poverty.

Parents and social‑service providers described everyday tradeoffs families make between rent, groceries and childcare. ‘‘When winter months were brutal, it was brutal on my pockets too,’’ testified Jessica Vargas, a New Britain parent, adding that a state credit ‘‘would help give them a chance to breathe.’’ Marielle Smith, a Windsor school employee and parent, said the credit would offset costs including sports and child care and asked the committee to support a larger, refundable amount.

Child‑poverty researchers and policy groups provided modeling to the committee. Connecticut Voices for Children outlined how an indexed income tax and a child credit could reduce poverty rates measured by the supplemental poverty measure; their written analysis modeled impacts at several credit levels and inclusion rules. Proponents argued that indexing tax brackets and exemptions to inflation would stop ‘‘bracket creep’’ that raises tax liability when families’ wages rise only to keep pace with the cost of living.

Coalitions including End Hunger Connecticut and regional community foundations said universal free school meals and a child tax credit are complementary policies: the school meals bill (HB 7273) would reduce student hunger and make school participation simpler, while a refundable credit would help families pay for other essentials and stimulate local economies because families generally spend tax credits in their communities.

Several witnesses urged a fully refundable design and a benefit amount that meaningfully offsets the cost of child‑rearing. ‘‘A well‑designed Connecticut child tax credit can provide either a lifeline or make life more affordable,’’ said Nick Teeling of Connecticut Voices for Children, who presented modeling showing poverty‑reduction effects under several program designs.

Committee members asked for details on eligibility, interaction with SNAP and other benefits, and the budgetary phasing for higher benefit levels. Witnesses acknowledged design tradeoffs: a larger credit increases poverty relief and local stimulus but requires greater state revenue or offsets.

Ending: Lawmakers requested additional fiscal and distribution analysis to understand budget trade‑offs and potential revenue offsets; advocates said they would continue engagement on eligibility, indexation language and refundability to finalize an administrable policy before any committee vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Finance Revenue & Bonding Public Hearing (4/14/25)","oneSentenceSummary","Advocates, parents and researchers urged the Finance Committee to adopt a refundable Connecticut child tax credit and to index personal income tax brackets to inflation to reduce child poverty and offset rising living costs.","taxTitle","Finance, Revenue and Bonding, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut","taxId",15582,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6595014,"Connecticut hearing weighs 2¢-per-ounce sweetened beverage tax to fund universal school meals",17632,925000,18557000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3043711-d76569eac515db6a00821d0e321dac84&start=925&end=18557","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3043711-d76569eac515db6a00821d0e321dac84/thumbnail_925000.jpg","/articles/6595014/Connecticut/Connecticut-hearing-weighs-2-per-ounce-sweetened-beverage-tax-to-fund-universal-school-meals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6595014-430db17dc3c3f2e9c18caa5db4b76099/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185234&Signature=TbN8qfWp8VvBwOc7KRXZS~op6BNzyY-7B3amlks98MEjhAm33TrLE-aikxEDwzfAwxmItaCwsBYsM4mrdzF~JgKW8BpRGyWd1dZBdOXkXxSA1lStFKyDdioZEarhwSCL4I35XhYXW5jAAAeQeMQ0X2qSSZTWY4ql49HmJE4Mleh5Pf-gvrmU0JM7nxzpYPkJvPaTaumlXxIta4r-W0GThT6dKiOIQWat9xajzkD6olcOzmbSs8ADHR6jkGuNg209PPnJcYhZmpk0sVQalZlhC~ao~IHoL~94cBa7Qn-Onh9aAElZeP-qtp4wqBQoYASxMJ-dngIwSFvCbIIeAIBx5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Connecticut legislative hearing held by the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee focused on a proposed excise tax on certain sweetened beverages and the proposal to dedicate revenue to universal school meals. Proponents across public health, nutrition and community groups urged lawmakers to approve the measure as a way to both improve children’s diets and provide a stable funding stream for free school breakfast and lunch.

Supporters described the bill as a two‑part public‑health strategy: a price signal to discourage purchase of beverages linked to obesity and dental disease, and a revenue stream to expand school meal programs. ‘‘Taxing sugary drinks to fund healthy school meals is a win‑win for Connecticut,’’ said Alla Hill, senior science policy associate at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Nut graf: Proponents argued the levy would lower consumption of products with little nutritional value while providing a dedicated funding source for school meals that, they said, increase participation, improve diet quality and reduce stigma for students who otherwise must apply for free or reduced‑price meals. Opponents — including restaurant owners, beverage distributors and bottlers — warned the tax would significantly raise operating costs and retail prices, could accelerate out‑of‑state shopping and risk job losses in food service and distribution.

Most of the public testimony centered on HB 7273, the proposal that would place a 2¢ per ounce excise on a broad range of sweetened beverages, syrups and powders and dedicate proceeds to a statewide free school meals program. Public health witnesses cited experience from U.S. cities and foreign jurisdictions and peer‑reviewed studies showing declines in taxed beverage purchases after levies were enacted. Marlene Schwartz, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health at the University of Connecticut, told the committee that school meals are already the most nutritious food many students receive, and that higher participation after universal access improves food‑service budgets and can reduce stigma.

‘‘School food is tightly regulated for nutrition,’’ Schwartz said. ‘‘When participation rises, school meal programs have more stable funding and more opportunity to invest in fresh food and in programs that get kids to try healthier meals.’’

Public health organizations urged lawmakers to direct revenue to meal funding and related community nutrition programs rather than to the general fund. Several witnesses highlighted equity: families with low incomes both consume taxed beverages at higher rates and stand to benefit most from free school meals and other nutrition investments.

Industry and small business witnesses urged the committee to reject the tax. Scott Dolch, president and CEO of the Connecticut Restaurant Association, said the impact on restaurants would be substantial because the tax applies at the ounce produced level for syrups and concentrates used in fountain drinks. ‘‘A 3‑gallon bag‑in‑a‑box for fountain drinks could cost an additional $46.08,’’ Dolch said, arguing that the cost would be passed to businesses and consumers and would hit independent restaurateurs with thin margins.

Representatives of beverage manufacturers and distributors made a similar point. Mike DeFeo, general manager of Hartford Coca‑Cola, warned the committee that the tax would magnify recent cost pressures including the recently increased container deposit. ‘‘Two cents per ounce might not sound like a lot, but it does add up quickly,’’ he said, and said the proposal would be regressive in practice because lower‑income households spend a larger share of income on grocery purchases.

Workers in distribution and bottling told the committee they feared the measure would reduce volumes and lead to daily layoffs in operations with staffing tied to shipment volumes. Teamsters members described existing bottle‑deposit declines and said lower sales volumes have already reduced work days in some locations.

Committee members pressed both sides on cross‑border shopping and on how dedicated revenues would be protected. Some public‑health witnesses pointed to studies showing limited cross‑border purchase effects for city taxes and emphasized that a statewide tax would reduce the advantage of neighboring towns. Opponents pointed to Philadelphia and other local examples they said show significant border effects and initial business disruption.

Several witnesses also discussed program design details: whether revenues should fully replace federal pandemic‑era funding that lapsed in 2022, whether funds should cover summer feeding programs, and whether districts participating in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) — which currently provides free meals where enough students qualify through other public programs — would still receive state reimbursements to ‘‘make CEP districts whole’’ where federal reimbursement leaves a gap.

What’s next: The committee did not vote on the measure at the hearing. Lawmakers acknowledged the policy trade‑offs: public‑health and anti‑hunger advocates emphasized reduced consumption and improved access to nutritious meals, while the restaurant and beverage sectors urged alternatives to a sector‑specific excise that would avoid burdening local small businesses. Several lawmakers requested fiscal detail on the revenue estimate and on how state reimbursements would treat CEP districts and summer feeding.

Ending: If advanced, the proposal would be one of the first statewide measures in the nation tying a beverage excise directly to universal school meals. Committee staff and proponents agreed to continue technical work on dedicated‑fund protections, program eligibilities and cost estimates before the bill is considered for committee action.","Supporters told the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee a statewide excise on sweetened beverages could both reduce consumption and raise dedicated revenue for free breakfast and lunch for all K–12 students; industry and restaurant groups warned the levy would raise consumer prices, hit small businesses and risk cross-border shopping.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6595008,"Yale researchers tell Connecticut committee the state lost billions under current pension governance; propose board oversight",110,12171000,12281000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3043711-d76569eac515db6a00821d0e321dac84&start=12171&end=12281","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3043711-d76569eac515db6a00821d0e321dac84/thumbnail_12171000.jpg","/articles/6595008/Connecticut/Yale-researchers-tell-Connecticut-committee-the-state-lost-billions-under-current-pension-governance-propose-board-oversight","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6595008-6abc3c2df04d8bf58d5efd22bcc3075f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185234&Signature=cZsqpQ-UyTJ3BuLnvmhTtWmHYapgNOn~qPZuhtCLsZoGtsrrkPMvs48Rs6yE5CB0nj6KokChzF1rB04277-rLf1sAXNSoDiObMb9jpUOGl87BQGe4r6teFcsGWf5Z~bFSkrjulIrOJyfsPVisC-vl~CHPL2M-dkdD9QrKf7wZnsJIe2mWY4LqYtPzy6eKJoQBcogcPESeJh7tMLF-MJGgzJg9RMeJ0xwO4P78De0QAZM3yDSLfll4DUMPBtUlUnzZwls4QC~owseGkpnuws6xoB7vdYWBCyDl0hK0lfovn4gQvwXLf8CYazy23QkzK~BKXJXZU1VCxjC08nFzcQWQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A panel of academics from Yale told the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee that Connecticut's governance structure for state pension investments — a sole fiduciary model — left the state with billions of dollars in foregone returns over decades and encouraged a governance change.

Nut graf: Professors and research staff with deep analysis of pension returns urged the committee to move Connecticut toward a board‑governance model that provides fiduciary checks and continuous expert oversight, arguing that the state's long‑term underperformance is not a personnel issue but a structural one.

Professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, founder of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute, and research colleagues testified to a pattern of underperformance in Connecticut's pension investments relative to the median U.S. state. ‘‘Every one percent of better performance amounts to $600 million’’ in additional value to state funds, Sonnenfeld said, using the committee's $60 billion asset base as the baseline for the calculation.

The witnesses said recent improvements in investment operations under the present treasurer and chief investment officers had produced better trailing returns, but they cautioned those gains may not be durable without a governance structure that creates enduring checks and external expert input. They recommended transitioning from an advisory investment council to an investment board with fiduciary authority — a model used by 49 other states.

Proponents emphasized that the proposal was not an indictment of current staff or the treasurer but a governance change to lower organizational risk and institutionalize expert oversight. They pointed to historical examples, they said, where long‑running underperformance occurred because underperforming managers were retained and there was insufficient board‑level challenge to portfolio allocation decisions.

Committee members asked how the change would affect operational speed and whether the proposed board would be bipartisan and insulated from political cycles. Witnesses said those governance design questions could be handled by statute and recommended codified terms, conflict‑of‑interest rules and public reporting to attract high‑quality fiduciary talent.

Ending: The Yale team urged the committee to send the bill to the floor for broader consideration, arguing that even a modest long‑run improvement in returns would provide years of additional funding for retirees and state services. The committee asked staff for statutory language options and additional legal review before potential referral steps.
","University researchers testified that Connecticut's sole‑fiduciary model for managing public pension investments underperformed peer states by billions over decades and urged the legislature to create a fiduciary oversight board to provide checks and attract more experienced managers.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Parents, child advocates urge Connecticut to adopt refundable child tax credit; bill would index income tax and create credit

Connecticut hearing weighs 2¢-per-ounce sweetened beverage tax to fund universal school meals

Yale researchers tell Connecticut committee the state lost billions under current pension governance; propose board oversight