♪ > > This week in the Wheelhouse community.

> > The session starts and will funding cuts and compromise in Connecticut.

♪ > > for > > Connecticut Public.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse we show that connects politics to the people.

We got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

This session.

Lawmakers say they'll talk about everything from federal funding cuts too.

The states regulation of artificial intelligence later in the show reporters Susan Raff Ball who dama.

We'll break down what to expect in the 2026 legislative session.

But first, we're going to hear from party leadership, House Speaker Matt Ritter is next.

And then House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora hat tip, we take these conversations on Monday before federal lawmakers agreed on a deal to end a government shutdown.

Joining me now is Matt Ritter, speaker of the House and Connecticut's General Assembly Speaker.

And thank you so much for being here.

Thanks from it.

Thankful that have you on the show here on the day of the legislative session here in Connecticut.

Bigger.

What are your priorities for this session?

What our your colleagues concerns for this session as well.

And then tries to it.

That's the same thing that's hard to do is a lot of copperhead pensions for in the budget.

Adjustments are always the main responsibly and with any legislative body.

So we have to look at where are we are the second biennium budget.

We do to your budget.

And here in Connecticut.

> > So they'll be adjustments.

Obviously, there's been a lot made about the cuts from the federal government.

We've done a good job of, for example, subsidizing those health premiums that would expire.

Otherwise who are there to cover snap if we needed to.

So I think will you know, be continuing emergency fund just in case we need.

It has about 300 million dollars.

So the combination of that and some budget adjustment should help us help our residents on issues around affordability and then just, you know, big bills in our caucus.

We want to implement no excuse absentee balloting.

The voters overwhelmingly approved that a couple years ago.

We want to make sure we get our statutes updated and codified to reflect that.

And, you know, you'll see people worry about issues around public health and vaccinations and can we strengthen DCF and some of the things we've read about in the tragedy you read about additional staffing and software tracking and things like that so that those of people's plane busy, the short session.

It'll keep you busy.

The federal cuts continue.

And I understand that's why the emergency fund is there in the first place.

> > You talked about the health care subsidies.

Do you feel like you need more money for that?

You feel like you need more money for Medicaid.

> > Right now, this government shutdown.

And I don't know when that lender what will happen, but we are obviously want the fun to continue to the end of the calendar year because Congress's on different fiscal.

Even we are their fiscal start October one.

26 and we don't want to have to come into session a month before the election to deal with any federal con.

So that's one of just will make to the fund.

> > Medicaid is is less of a worry in 2026 becomes a really big problem.

> > In 2028 so we can probably wait a little bit to see what happens there.

We are changing our software for eligibility on snap require more testing.

So we are making infrastructure upgrades not to do that.

So we need more money.

Maybe it's hard to say, but we'll have that conversation throughout session.

I would remind listeners there's no statement candidates doing so the most liberal states, the most conservative states, you know what?

No governor, nobody else except us doing it.

There's been a opportunities in the past to sort of put more money into emergency funds and things like that.

> > Do you think you're at a decent level here now in terms of trying to address this from a state perspective, we know that the health care subsidies have expired at the federal level and it's really been something that's sort of a catalyst, some for some of these government shutdown discussions, obviously maybe more ice and that kind of enforcement.

But anything else you think you need to do here at the local level?

> > Meanwhile, we've again, we provided subsidies for residents and those will be back back to as well.

So you can even change your plan now, would we would take care of it come January one?

I'm not aware of any other state has stepped up to do that.

It's expensive.

There is a limit to what state governments can do to respond to federal costs.

We can make up for all of those We're always open for that conversation.

Will we'll see how the exchange stabilizer doesn't stabilize in the coming months.

Now that we make our residents aware of the subsidies.

I went a little close to the deadline.

Some people work, you know, November 15th as open enrollment and we didn't know something.

So a few weeks after so will monitor and keep our eye on it.

But I would challenge any any state to do anything near what kind of kid has done so far because they haven't because we know how serious it is and we know how destabilizing it could benefit exchange.

And by the way, it was a bipartisan.

Everybody was a bipartisan bill in the House can create a fun and it was bipartisan approval when the governors in the letter to legislative leaders to do those subsidies on the exchange.

> > Are you planning any legislation or you watching what's happening?

Maybe from William Tong in the attorney generals office, maybe at the state level.

Are you watching here with what's happening with federal in foreign in federal immigration and Customs Enforcement actions and increased action we're seeing throughout the United States.

Is there anything to do here at the local level?

We updated our trust act just in the last special session we had in courthouse and things like that.

> > Well, we'll see what recommendations come out of the Judiciary Committee from advocates.

What you're good at it.

But a lot of the stuff that you're seeing around being taxed training warrants, you know, that's going to be mostly at the federal level, which is why they're fighting so hard in Congress to get that done.

We don't have the ability to, you training of federal officers bought.

We do have the right to make our tweets in Connecticut are constitutional and only makes on.

We have to make more look at those.

On the issue of energy affordability.

Governor Ned Lamont said that he doesn't believe cutting the states.

> > Public benefits charge is the way to handle high energy bills this winter and a recent for me fo the of a one-time energy rebate of about $400 to help people out there is that there's stuff you could do.

But there's also power generation, which I imagine is very important.

Like what can you do at this point?

> > It's hard and we don't control about two-thirds of the bill at the state level.

It's all controlled by federal or interstate, you know, regulatory agencies.

Yeah, we could look at a rebate.

I mean, look, people are going to be this has been a cold couple of weeks.

People are going to hit really hard because of that, right?

So you're going to see heating bills in oil bills go pretty high when people get in February.

So rebates, one idea at the pump and a charge it?

Yes, there are.

We definitely able to cut some things last year from it that perhaps should not ended up being on those bills.

But a lot of the programs are good quality programs that they can get.

Residents to help us transition to cleaner energy sources, solar.

So if it's not as simple as saying, cut all of or put in the general fund.

So, yeah, it's a or subsidize.

It is one option may be.

Yeah, but we've looked at that and I think we'll continue to look at where we can make efficiencies.

But the pope has been charged as some some some good programs.

And the notion of just put it in the General Fund budget, the taxpayers are paying for that as well.

Another way.

Yeah.

It's becoming sort of a tradition here at this point, not necessarily a positive one.

> > But here at end of the legislative session, when UN and Representative Rojas are addressing the media talking about a lack of political will really around housing legislation.

There was some changes done in the special session.

But how much can you really do to try to push some of these towns?

I know that there's a lot of talk around what you do with affordable housing.

But at the end of the day, in order to get this done, there might have to be a push.

We talk about the carrot and the stick approach.

But how far can you go to to try to get either housing extra extra houses built or apartment complexes to house perspective, people moving to Connecticut or the people who are already on house here.

> > Lakers just 2 different questions from I think housing for a lot of communities during my economics.

And so for a lot of towns like it hard for and field that have met their affordable housing requirements, you know, that's an economics issue and that's we're committed to this and how it finally in this develop will you're talking about how to have a mentor for the house requirements under 8 Dash 30 G look, the Republicans voted against the housing bill in special session, as they said in a limited local control.

So you might argue it didn't go far enough.

Apparently went pretty far.

What I think that Bill did was struck a compromise.

But in the governor's office and was it leaders like Jason who worked very hard in that Bill and let's give it a chance to play out.

We're not going to major housing bills this year.

We passed a really strong bill in November.

And let's see what happens.

There's a lot of working groups.

There's involvement because there's plans to be submitted.

Let's give that 18 months and Surrey are from there.

But it is true that housing very expensive.

So all government can really do outside of sort of the issue of affordability for affordable housing and zoning as you can look at subsidized housing and the state does have that ready to provide a lot of money for first-time homebuyers and things like that.

But we may have to look more.

Provide additional financing to chief for others to receive your favorite and others to make it easier and cheaper to build homes.

It's very expensive right now.

A proposal in November against you could look at it as sort of water down because it doesn't go as far as Jason Jason's bill did all the way back in.

It feels like forever ago.

But all the way back in.

> > Main June of last year because we had the whole controversy afterward with the governor asking you all the to push that aside and work on it in the special session.

So are you at least getting complaints from activists that want you to go even further or from any kind of entity at this point.

So you guys are pretty said at that point with housing.

move on to the no excuse absentee voting.

I'm glad that you brought that up.

What is the latest with that?

I know you're talking about is being something that is a is a is a priority for you and your caucus here.

Voters passed an amendment to the state constitution to allow for it in 2024, what can you do this session to get that done or what might be the finer points that you have to sort of massage over the next few months.

> > You just kind of find, Brian, if you if you right now, if you got an absentee ballot application, it would scare you out of town or you want to go to the polls for medical reasons.

We're going to update or statutes to call that out.

Now.

That is just you can just I want to advance the ballot.

It may require some adjustments may election statutes to implement.

That will come in town.

Clerk's office is on timing.

When can balance be available?

You know, there's you know, there's cure provisions, the that Steve it's useful as it has a high error rate so close to my 5% in some municipalities every 100 ballots cast an absentee ballot.

5 are invalid because you can follow specific instructions.

There are some states allow you to share those areas if you're going to find time.

So those are things that are some of them are fine.

Technical point.

You have to work through.

Compromise.

> > Maybe a better relationship between you and some Republicans in the House in recent years, particularly with Vincent Candelora.

Is there a way that there is going to be some bipartisanship or at least the better question is where are areas where you all can work together and we'll work together over this session.

I think that he and I worked very well together.

I've been proud to have the support for my 3 terms as speaker of the House opening days.

> > So I don't see that not continuing.

Look, I think we've already talked about Ecs.

We've talked about the use, the emergency fund, which, you know, been helped, though, for may not go for the next generation of it, but he was there in the open back in November.

Again, will look at the budget adjustments if we're providing rebates or tax cuts, that spies, we've been doing a bipartisan as always.

They'll be things we can do together.

Things we can do together.

But we always talk about it will try to find the middle ground on it.

But there are 2 political parties for reason.

There are differences in certain core values.

At the end.

And if not necessarily going to be able to get over with one or 2 conversations.

At radar is the speaker of the House in Connecticut's General Assembly.

> > Speaker Renner, thank you so much for coming on us.

Thanks for have.

From Connecticut Public Radio.

This is the Wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

After the break, House Republican leader Vincent Candelora will join us to discuss his priorities for the session.

It dissipated 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, We'll take your questions a little later.

Also hit us up on our YouTube stream.

More Wheelhouse is next on Connecticut Public.

♪ ♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

The state Capitol is abuzz today with the open of the 2026 legislative session.

What are lawmakers planning to tackle during the short session on Monday, we spoke with Republican Vincent Candelora about his top issues as the session kicks off.

Joining me now is Connecticut's House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora Representative Kettler.

Thank you so much for joining us here on the Wheelhouse.

> > Thanks for having me.

Representative Khanna lower as we kick off the legislative session.

What are your goals?

Can you kind of?

> > Give us a sense of what is on the front burner for your colleagues.

Any concerns going into the session?

Help me kind of break it down.

> > Yeah, I think our concerns a similar what we're hearing at the national level that being affordability for our residents.

You know, people were hit with inflation, high food prices and we need to start working on trying to make an exit a little bit better.

Our fiscal guardrails generated a lot of revenue for the state of Connecticut.

We need to get that revenue down to the residents who paid those taxes.

So we're looking at proposing property tax relief in particular.

We would like to see more money going into education, which would also has a correlation offset property taxes since.

Education relies so heavily on that real property tax and then there's other issues we're hearing about that are hot topics, artificial intelligence government, transparency looking at nonprofit funding, making sure those used exactly for what we want going to be used for.

And we minimize the fraud waste and abuse.

There's the fiscal guardrails.

There's also rainy day fund money that comes from that.

> > Are you sort of trying to make sure that you and your colleagues, the people in the Legislature can maybe more directly control where that money goes.

So like I know in the past, some lawmakers have been reticent to spend that money.

Are you kind of sort of aware that it might be spent and maybe let's spend it in a certain way?

Is that what you're trying to say here?

> > That's part of it.

Absolutely.

When we put those guardrails in place.

The goal was to pay down our unfunded liabilities, which we put over 10 billion dollars in 2 over the last 7 years.

But we also has a correlation of that wanted to reduce taxes.

You know, if you're reducing your expenses, you should be able to reduce what you're charging to get those expenses thank to cut.

That hasn't really happened.

So where I pardon for my Democrat colleagues is I don't want to see government grow at the level that it's growing.

We need to give some of this money back to the residents of Connecticut because they are truly when it comes to homeownership expecially, they can't afford to pay the taxes that are being assessed on them.

> > Recently talked on NBC, Connecticut about federal funding cuts saying you're going to pull back and funding.

You need to give the organization explanation of why not sure at that in the proper context.

But if I do it, tell us more about how the ping pong of federal funding cuts here so to speak, particularly the recent HHS reversal, the cut 2 billion dollars for mental health and addiction services impacts the work that you're doing as a state lawmaker.

> > Yeah, it's it's a bit of a nightmare.

Quite honestly.

You know, I work with a lot of different mental health organizations.

That's why my community in North Branford, I received that phone call late at night panics that they receive cuts, which would have them not be able to provide mental health services to children in schools.

So that started a little bit of a scramble to figure out why those cuts were happening.

As soon as we heard about them, we then heard from the federal government that they were reversing that decision to this day.

We don't really know why they were initiating those cuts.

And I think that uncertainty out of the federal government has led to a lot of criticism and I think it's deservedly so.

And it's sort of an unnecessary forced error on their part.

> > So I imagine some of that money to that might be spent in the legislature might go to cover some fort health care costs.

A lot of things happening at the federal level and potentially around.

Obviously the health care subsidies that have expired.

There's more talk about Medicaid dollars being allocated here in Connecticut to try to cover some federal funding cuts.

Where are your thoughts on what the legislature needs to do on that front?

> > Yeah, I think the legislature needs to be more prescriptive about it.

And that's I'm a little critical that we're going to create and that another emergency fund, 300 million dollars that it is going to get doled out > > that money really needs to be spent carefully.

So some of the cause of the federal level might make sense.

And we have to have that conversation.

Some may not.

I think when it comes to the health care subsidies, yeah, we need to roll back some of the subsidies because people that are earning over $200,000 a year probably don't need to get their healthcare subsidized.

That's a conversation we need to have.

If we're just going to backfill everything.

I think it's a mistake for Connecticut.

I think we're going to fall into deficit because we just aren't going to be on the cover.

Not just I would call them cuts but policy adjustments that we're seeing at the federal level, whether it's work requirements.

> > Or fraud.

> > Standards.

Those things are going to need to be implemented.

> > What about in terms of housing, this kind of blew up at the end of the session last year.

And this was sort of really Democrats fighting over this and the governor sort of asking Democratic lawmakers to change their tune on this.

And then we saw some legislation.

> > And in the excuse me, in the a special session that we had.

But do you think that housing will be a big thing that comes up here and and mainly maybe it's Democratic lawmakers trying to find some way to push towns and cities too.

Build more affordable housing.

Do expect that to be a big topic again during the session.

> > So I think the affordable housing issue, the market needs to take to probably 80% of that housing bill I thought was a decent bill.

But the 20% is bad.

So I think what we may see is some adjustments being made through session towns.

I have no doubt are going to be in litigation over the legislation because it's just the ambiguous and what they need for us.

And I don't think it gives us affordable housing and gives us apartment complexes and probably lots of them.

I think it invites private equity into the housing market.

But I don't think it's going to lead to our does single-family starter homes, which Connecticut desperately needs.

And I think probably the way we're going to need to go was looking at some sort of subsidized program to help encourage that type of construction because it's become too expensive for contractors to build and that's we have to ask why.

> > Much of what's happening at the national level as well as not just talk about how expensive everything is affordability.

But there's also concern about Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

If any kind of legislation comes across your desk where I don't know of if Connecticut will do the service would be a lawsuit from William Tong or something like that.

But if anything does come your way, would you support it?

> > So at this point, I think we are working at the the extremes right now when it comes to custom enforcement, we really need to come to the middle.

And I do believe that Connecticut law that's currently on the books went to that extreme.

So they pushed customs and ice enforcement onto the streets as opposed to leaving in the courtrooms where it should be and so I would like to see greater cooperation at our local and state level when ICE is coming in to arrest a criminal illegal immigrant but I but I think it's I think we need to strike that balance in Connecticut when the trust act was first passed, it received overwhelming Republican support in 2016.

We understood the concept that you want immigrants who are here illegally to have the ability to seek out law enforcement when they need it.

And that's where that bill had done that trust act was an amended without any Republican support in the Democrats to get into a different direction and they created essentially a gag order where are state and local law enforcement are not allowed to communicate with our federal law enforcement and this happened well before Trump was re elected into office.

But what it's done is it's frustrated.

The process and I think that's why we're seeing what has happened in Minnesota.

The organizations are working together.

And so I would hope that Connecticut, which just take a more moderate approach in addressing this issue.

In other words, like with what's happening in Minnesota, you're saying that perhaps.

> > There's a there's an effort by the local law enforcement there.

The local agencies there in Minnesota to work with ICE, maybe and in return, they're be sort of a challenge to their sanctuary status.

You'd like to see maybe Connecticut's sanctuary rules.

That law you calling extreme there.

Maybe that changes a little bit.

And then maybe there's also on the federal law enforcement.

Maybe they scale > > That's right.

And they back.

were not seeing what's happening in Connecticut.

You know, happen.

What's happening in Minnesota.

We're not seeing Connecticut.

I do fear that could happen.

Everything is so politically charged these days and it's hard to really ascertain the truth.

But what I do now is I don't think our laws are set up in a way that is best suited for public safety and so that's why, you know, I would like to strike that balance.

I hear from my local law enforcement all the time that say they're just not sure what they're allowed to do when communicate with with federal authorities.

It's sort of a crazy way for us to be operating in our state.

> > Part of the thing that came out of Minnesota and that shooting recently of Alex Pretti was sort of a back and forth on on how we view the Second Amendment now in the country and guns I think it was Trump last week.

You said you can't walk in with guns, just can't.

And then the NRA posted on X. We unequivocally believe that all law-abiding citizens have a right to keep.

And bear arms anywhere.

They have a legal right to be.

Are you worried about the Second Amendment in that regard?

And I guess when I say are you worried about is there anything you feel like you need to do locally to sort of stand up to it.

> > Yeah, I mean, Connecticut already has the strictest gun laws in the country and that incident, you know, bath facts make bad laws.

And that's what I'm always concerned with men we saw, the killing of George Floyd.

The Democrats in Connecticut came out with one of the worst in my opinion, public account of the police accountability bill that really has hurt the way law enforcement is conducted.

Again.

There are good things in the bill, but there's probably 10% of it that caused a lot of damage.

I get concerned that will see laws and rhetoric because of looking at that fact pattern.

And I think there are certainly issues.

I think the takeaway one being for protesters, Joe, if you're a law enforcement while you're protesting, you're free exercise your First Amendment rights but stay out of their way.

And I also think on the flip side, we have to increase our cooperation with agencies.

When you start hearing about the individuals that they're resting, you kind of think, you know, maybe we do want these people off the street, but then you hear the other side saying they're pulling grandmothers out of their homes.

We have to stop going back and forth with the rhetoric trying to sell it politically.

The public and take the temperature down.

So you'd like to see more work between local enforcement and > > local agencies, local, state and federal government.

I'd imagine.

And I'd like to see public officials can behave like public officials and not and not politicize everything.

> > On the issue of energy affordability, governor Lamont said he doesn't believe cutting the state's public benefits charge is the way to handle high energy bills this winter.

But a recent CBI, a forum he pulled the idea of a one-time energy rebate of about $400 to help people out.

What do you think should be done?

> > We need systemic change and that's something the governor has been unwilling to do.

And I find it frustrating for instance, in the public benefits charge, there was a welfare program created that if you can't pay your electric bill, you don't have to and other people's going are going to pay it for you.

That program was slated to cost around 50 million dollars a year.

It has ballooned to over 250 million Justin 3 years and it continues to climb.

Those are programs that we can't put on the electric bill.

Now, it doesn't hurt the residents, but it hurts economic growth when businesses are strapped with multi $1000 increases to their electric bills.

So for the governor, I again, I think throwing money at situations and subsidizing something temporarily is not a systemic change we want.

And so I think there's areas of that public benefits charge that we could reduce very quickly by taking those programs out of it.

> > Connecticut Mirror reporter Mark passed KISS says you and Speaker Ritter have a legislative bro Mance of sorts.

So take whatever that is.

And I don't know what I know what he means by it.

But I guess what we're trying to get to is what every person always nowadays is looking for some sort of bipartisanship, some sort of compromised because we don't see it in DC as you talk about.

A lot of things are are politicized nowadays, longest shutdown in government history on dionna is there anything that you already go to work together on that?

Bipartisan in nature?

> > Yeah, you know, I think we both come at the premise.

We're going to communicate with each other and everything and we're going to work with each other until we can't anymore.

> > So there are issues that he'll come forth and say this is our initiative.

If Republicans don't like it, we'll try to change it.

And if we can't ultimately will be at odds.

But the goal is always for us to try to, you know, get to yes and trying to do what's good for the state of Connecticut, but not compromise our principles.

So well.

I think we have a very a good open relationship and there's a level of trust there.

The 2 of us know where each other's coming from and nowhere are boundaries are, you know, I'm hopeful that we could do education reform this year and a bipartisan basis.

We have done some reforms in the past.

Hopefully when it comes things like AI regulation that could be bipartisan.

The budget is always the trickier area because you know, that's a substantial policy.

The decisions that are made there you know, we as Republicans have a growing concern at the level of spending and how much Democrats have pushed the envelop and the guardrails.

But we always do try to seek common ground where we can in 30 seconds or less.

What can you tell me about education reform that you'd like to see?

What's the > > quickest thing that can be done from your perspective.

> > So I think we need to increase the foundation level.

Hasn't been increased.

And I think it's got to be over 15 years and so towns and cities are getting this state's share of education funding that they used to get.

And so as education climbs, we see a reduction essentially in the state share.

So I would like to tie it to inflation.

I would like to increase the foundation, give real tax relief to the residents of Connecticut because education budgets are one of the most difficult budget to pass throughout the state of Connecticut.

And we need to provide help.

> > lot of work ahead of you.

Representative Candelora, thank you so much for coming on the show.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Great.

Haven't.

From Connecticut Public Radio.

This is the Wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

After the break to reporters will give us their breakdown of the lawmakers agendas for the session.

We're going to talk to Susan Raff an embargo.

Dama hit us to date 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, Listen to the Wheelhouse.

Connecticut Public.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

We've heard from Democratic House Speaker Matt Ritter and House Republican leader Vincent Candelora.

But what they plan to tackle during the first day of the session can have the first day of the session without Susan Raff, who is going to welcome lawmakers, essentially the capital and keeps the tradition alive later today, Susan Raff chief political reporter at WFSB Channel 3.

Thank Must feel like a regular this morning.

You are your most accurate there is including and Dame a W S at Hughes, senior reporter joining us been thank you so much.

> > Thank you, Frank.

He and hello Susan.

> > Good morning.

It's going to be a busy day for us and hopefully a productive legislative session.

> > You said it, although it is a short session.

So I'm holding my breath.

We hope you join the conversation today.

Give us a call.

8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, > > Although I say all that and they did have a pretty productive now that I think about it, special session that was only 2 days long.

So yes, they do.

I guess you could get a lot We just heard from Speaker Matt Ritter and Representative Candelora discussing our state's response to federal found funding cuts.

Sounds to me like there will be little if any additional dollars allocated for items like Medicaid reimbursements and health care subsidy, right?

Well, they put 500 million into that fund, right.

And I think they've spent about 200 million of it.

> > And it's a very technical thing.

What they're voting on today and tomorrow, it's basically because they were not session at the time.

It was deemed an emergency.

But now it's not an emergency because they're in session.

So they have to do it.

Republicans and you heard from Representative Candelora the minority leader is not against the emergency fund but technically they feel that it gives the governor too much power, right?

But let's face it.

I mean, is Lamont going to buy a Ferrari with that money?

Now he's not so it's more technical, but I think they both agreed because of the unpredictability with the federal government.

They have to do something to protect people in Connecticut.

> > bog it sounds like like Republican lawmakers are more open to surplus dollars being spent.

I think we addressed exactly that with Candelora.

But it sounds like that's something that they're open to do.

Maybe they just want a little more control of it.

> > Well, basically the like it to be used to give some more tax breaks.

And the governor has an interesting way of putting it.

He says both the Democrats and the Republicans want to spend about a billion dollars and the simplest of the lawns and different things.

But both of them want to spend it and he wants to try and hold the So we'll see how that works out when it came to addressing a snap benefits.

Speaker Renner was defiant saying he didn't think that other states go as far as Connecticut to support residents.

> > With things like food and health care benefits.

We're going to be talking about SNAP benefits because nonprofits are talking to us about 36,000 beneficiaries or so may lose access to snap?

> > Well, I think SNAP benefits are really good example of the unpredictability of the federal government.

Right?

First they were on.

They were off.

We're going to be the money was cut, going back and forth.

So all of that I think is making it very, very difficult for legislators to balance a budget and and I was listening to Representative Candelora and there might be some way to look and see the benefits.

You know, his point of people making $200,000 a year, should they be getting these subsidies?

I mean, that's a conversation that lawmakers should have.

I think.

But by in large, I mean, if you look at most people who are on these benefits and let's be honest when it comes like access health or the Affordable Care Act, you know, these are people who can't get health insurance in another way and so all of a sudden they're now paying 2 $3,000 a month and they need health insurance.

That's a huge problem in this country.

Not just Connecticut.

> > So I think one thing and one thing that struck me > > was the fact Lee said a lot of the money that the spending right now is just to come fall with the new requirements.

a huge chunk of money, millions of dollars of live about 8 to 11 million dollars is going to awards just in this system.

So that they couldn't do the checks that are now required by the the federal regulations.

So it's a really complicated thing.

And that's what's complicated to me because they're saying that they're making those adjustments.

> > But that those adjustments could help save some money.

But I think the jury still out on that and whether or not they're going to need more money.

> > You know, and you look at SNAP benefits and I think all of us were very much aware of that.

And even people who didn't even know what snap and was, you know, just a couple of months ago, certainly do now and going to food pantries as often as I did in food share, you know, the face of people who are applying for benefits has greatly changed.

It's a wide range of people.

And so it goes to show you that people are struggling to put food on the table at them.

They are a necessity where the minimum we should be providing food certainly for families and for children.

> > 2 bills in the last 7 months long or so to address Connecticut's housing shortage.

The first pass at the end of their last regular legislative session.

Was then vetoed as we all remember that in the special session, a bill that was at least a leading Democrats in the state more favorable to municipalities past a new report presented at a local housing conference, though.

And I think you reported on channel 3 ball at Susan Bong says that there is a shortage of up to 380,000 units in the state.

been where do we go from here on housing?

Let's put it this This is an election year.

> > The house and is a very controversial issue.

They did a lot of the heavy lift in in the special session to try and get it across the finish line and get the governor to sign it.

I doubt that they'll want a deal with.

If you notice when you asked when do about he seemed to spill the that's not an issue.

The session very currently.

But I do think it will be because this is an election year.

I agree with you.

I think readers response was, you know, we did that last year > > moving on.

But I agree were.

with Representative Candelora in the sense that the primary obstacle really is the cost for housing and we need affordable housing.

But it's very expensive to build housing to buy the land to conform with a sewer requirements.

All of that.

So as much as some Townsend, who is the first selectman from North Haven, who's been a Republican very out in front and center on this about trying to encourage cities and towns to want to build and we need more housing.

We obviously do.

But I think because housing is so expensive to build does the state now have to offer subsidies to some of these?

You know, companies to build it so that it can be more affordable for people to live there.

One proposal that may be out there, I understand from the Connecticut project, they're working with state Senator Gary Winfield.

> > On a renter's who would benefit renters?

Making up to 75,000 a year based on their annual income and how much they pay in rent.

It would be capped at 2500 per household.

But again, tough road to hold for any kind of housing advocates.

This legislative session as that bomb mentions.

> > it is a > > election year, we asked about the increased presents a federal law enforcement in cities earlier there was the trust act changes that were made to that during the special session.

Obviously, there may be some federal lawsuit happening or at least the states suing the federal government.

We know that Minnesota is going back and forth that state with the federal government.

But it sounds like what?

But he just leaves get behind my attention.

We want to know whether or not a Republican lawmakers, particularly like Vincent Candelora could get behind any legislation to sort of limit ice if necessary, because at least he sounds like he was talking about it with NBC, Connecticut.

> > Yeah, I think he you know, I think we're all concerned about what we're seeing across the country.

Certainly in Minneapolis.

I'm one of the things that I've noticed with Governor Lamont is, you know, he really tries to be very unfair to can say, you know, Connecticut is not a sanctuary city.

Connecticut is not a sanctuary city.

I mean, the last thing that we want is ice to come to Connecticut.

I think people can agree on that right?

I mean that that would set up problems.

I mean, they're here.

Yeah, but not to that level.

I mean, they're not in our streets and maybe we're in in significant were a smaller state compared to others.

I mean, we have lawmakers have taken a stand on.

You know, whether ice can wear masks in court houses and stuff like that.

But it's it's a slippery s****.

And I think, you know, we don't want to stand out and have any issues.

But at the same time, people are very concerned about what we're seeing in other parts of the country.

And could that happen here?

Can you guys help me with where?

The trust act established that ICE agents can't go in Connecticut.

> > Already protections for undocumented migrants in Connecticut in that regard.

Like what?

What's in place right now in terms of what ice can't do here in Connecticut.

> > Well, the main thing the they tried to get.

I saw the courthouse that was the big last year.

And they tried tighten the regulations on coming into the courthouse.

But it's still pretty I don't I don't think of.

> > You know, let's try have we haven't had that much to a problem in Connecticut.

Yes, but we have had a few instances of fact there was there was something that happened with this a couple weeks ago.

In New Haven that was a big issue about ice in the courthouse right Bridgeport and New Haven that have seen, you know, most of the activity.

> > Camden as well to having a big ice action.

Representative Khanna Laura's comment on the situation in Minnesota included a reference to George Floyd's Twenty-twenty murder and the subsequent police reform in Connecticut sort of a railing on police accountability efforts rather than I guess, extensively addressing the NRA and the president's reaction.

Alex Pretti is killing.

So that's kind of like where I was trying to get to on.

That is like.

Are you willing to talk about what's happening in Minnesota because I guess at least that's where we're coming from.

People are at least watching what's happening, right?

So if you don't think it's really happy.

> > I think I think handlers comment, too, is that it puts law enforcement in Connecticut or anywhere in the country in a difficult situation, whether it's local or state because some of the things that ice is doing and are not allowed with state police and local police and it really creates a lot of tension.

And I think if you were to talk to some local police chiefs and we've seen them in Minneapolis and other places.

You know, they're having some challenges and difficulties and what ice is allowed to do.

And we saw that with the shooting of that young mother.

You know, if caught people standing in front of the car in a good, Renee good instead of the front of the car to the side of the car and and law enforcement here in Connecticut, particularly state police are taught you know what they can do and they cannot just fire on a car.

You have to earn it 2 evocative of past shootings we've seen in Connecticut covered by Connecticut > > Because it wasn't just in Public.

Louisville.

> > Senator Blumenthal who's pushing for regulation of ice on the federal level was using the Connecticut example in local police, the example of what local police allowed to up to the top of and prove prohibited from doing as a Templet for the regulation of what ice can He was on CNN saying the very same thing yesterday I heard him talking about that.

> > And there needs to be some uniformity with law enforcement and you can have any rogue elements.

And I think people have a right to be concerned about what they're seeing.

Because of recent developments surrounding the death of 11 year-old Jacqueline Mimi Torres Garcia.

> > And even the 32 year-old man who last year set fire to his home to alert people outside about decades of alleged abuse and neglect.

Lawmakers are getting questions about the state's Department of Children and Families and their oversight of children identified in abuse and neglect.

Reports.

Are lawmakers going to take a real swing at that, though?

> > I think there's a lot of backlash for that.

I understand the Connecticut is one of the very few states that doesn't have any regulations when it comes to homeschooling and I think these recent deaths and others there have been others is that the majority of people school absolutely not.

So lawmakers are trying to figure out if they can have some checks and balances or well-being checks to see if these children okay, they is not my understanding that lawmakers want to change the curriculum or tell them that they can home school.

They can.

But this is a very vocal group who feels that they just don't want any involvement in what they're doing.

We're talking with lawmakers about the public benefits charge in their electric bill and the rebate.

The governor has floated.

> > To help them with their bills.

Sounds like that could be about $200 has said $400 in the interview.

But some recent reporting by the Connecticut Mirror overnight after I taped that interview made it sound like it could be $200 there's that.

But again, power generation at Boggs.

Susan, I think that's probably what would be really a savings in the long run and friends and it is going to be a big issue in this in session.

because of the high cost of energy and also because it's a campaign issue.

So it's a Ryan Fazio who's running for governor, for you.

And that is using that is using.

That is the issue and so something is going to be done.

I'm almost > > But how far they'll go?

I setting.

don't I think it will.

> > It's it is not going to be something fundamental is awful.

It's going to be around the edges.

But the have to do something because is like an issue this > > Right.

So the governor, it session.

is an election year, right?

He's putting a tax rebate in his speech, which we're going to hear later on today, about $200 for single filer and 400 for a married couple.

Can I think that's an attempt and it is to address the affordability crisis.

Is it enough know it's a feel-good measure for sure.

But I think energy is far more complicated than that.

And it's going to take years before Connecticut really gets that under control.

Will you know what the public benefits charge there?

A lot of things I think in there that people would like to see is it worth revisiting may be?

We got 2 minutes to do this.

> > Let's get in on the 2026 gubernatorial race because and on the looted talking about 5 Co.

We'll do a little Fazio Stewart.

But first, I want Susan to talk about our newest entre into the race here, Betsy McCoy.

> > Well, I did have the opportunity to meet her when she put her hat in the ring.

I met her down in Greenwich.

You know, she really has spent much of her career in New York and I'm not sure a lot of people really no her.

She was Lieutenant Governor for George Pataki New York City and New York and, you know, she has a lot of energy.

One thing I will say, you know, she's 77 years old.

And when you meet her, you say whatever she's having.

I want that she looks fantastic right?

And but she's doing some things that, you know, she's going to come to the Capitol.

I don't think she has a lot of connection to Connecticut and some of the legislative issues.

Will that hurt her?

It might.

I think Ryan Fazio certainly is much more connected.

> > Well, you know, the thing about the Republican conventions and the primaries, they love Mavericks.

They love outside is.

It almost each time there's been legislature alleged illegal in the race, the gun for the outsider, the president hasn't a fun night.

So who knows?

> > I'm thinking about Davis Ammerman and then Bob Stefanowski that does that to > > Writing a time.

only you you.

know, you have a lot of fun.

Yeah, right.

People who have Ron Fairfield County, but again, she has not ever won a race.

She hasn't been involved in politics in 20 years.

And, you know, in New York, the Lieutenant Governor is on the same ticket as the governor.

So they don't run separately like they do here.

So I don't know.

I'm not sure that she's is involved.

One thing that I cannot understand is where is Mayor Erin Stewart and we really have not been able to connect with her a lot.

She's certainly doing things to to raise money.

But I think that would like you worried about whether or not half inner > > Found.

No, no, no, no.

half.

She's and she's getting a little too young marry.

A lot of folks out very low profile.

I think she should be out front center more.

She's really interested in leading the state.

I jumped in because that's the end of the show.

I could talk to these guys.

All they love these Bongo Dama Wse.

2 senior reporter.

Thank you so much for coming on.

Thank you.

And then as undrafted ago, reporter WFSB News chief political reporter.

Thank you for coming back.

Well, thank you for having Have fun at the Capitol.

All right.

I promise today show is produced by Talia Ricketts and edited by Patrick Scahill.

Technical producers doing race special.

Thanks, Megan Boone, Meagan Fitzgerald, Tess terrible, Connecticut Public's, visuals team in our operations team, Bradley O'Connor and company download the Wheelhouse anytime on your favorite podcast app on Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

♪ ♪