To date, the manner in which they have approached this has been mostly
symbolic with little in the way of substance. During the past legislative session,
they declared a pox on “one-time” money, some which is actual non-recurring
dollars but most
of which is recurring money shunted to dedicated funds that run surpluses that
then require an extra legislative step known as a “funds sweep” to free them
from perpetual non-use. This threw the budget out of balance, for which they
then declared they had a solution – let somebody else (the commissioner of
administration) take responsibility for balancing it using vague criteria they
established, including
hypocritically the use of one-time money.
More
responsible heads prevailed, but that doesn’t mean the self-designated
budget hawks have a bad idea. In fact, the notion that state government is
bloated is right on the mark. Louisiana always has had
a spending problem, not a revenue problem. But the solution is not to
create a straw man born of an accounting trick called “one-time money” and then
excommunicate it from a discussion of budgeting. The answer lies in properly
matching revenues in order of priority of need, although that itself must come
only after a decision (perhaps the first
steps of this being taken now) about what amount of revenue and from where
is appropriate for the state to address these needs in order of priority.
This means an overhaul of the dedicated funding structure, of which
there are around 300 separate ones, mostly by statute. Much of what comes in
this way does end up getting spent and for important purposes such as
elementary and secondary education. But a surprisingly large amount does not,
accumulating year after year as the funding mechanism, locked in by law or the
Constitution, keep extracting more money than is needed for the functions to
which these bucks are dedicated with the only recourse being separate
appropriations bills passed to free these funds. As of the end of fiscal year
2011, the amount bankrolled was almost $3
billion.
But for this to happen, legislators must show political courage as yet
invisible in them. It means that they can’t budget by autopilot, where about 75
percent of all revenues come into the state already locked into a function. That
makes it convenient for them subsequently to throw their hands up and to declare
that they can’t do anything about it, then to try to light up the one-time
money straw man to “prove” they are trying to do something about the budget,
when in fact it is their own cowardice that causes the problem. For to wipe out
most dedicating of funds by legislative act means annually making hard budgeting
choices in the matching of revenues to function and having to take responsibility
for those actions, instead of being able to claim impotence by blaming past
officials and accounting procedures. Actually doing their jobs invites the
threat of failing to win reelection, which they desperately want to avoid.
It’s a job they already have shirked despite statute. R.S. 49:308.5 mandates
that a regular biennial review of dedications occurs with the goal of terminating
those that aren’t useful. Both the Legislature and (also mentioned in the act)
and executive branch have failed to follow this since its passage in 2009.
So, if this group is willing to make any genuine contribution to the
budgeting process, it will declare that it will undertake what already has been
neglected, a review of dedication and readiness to declare a number of them
should be subject to sunset. It members then will back bills to do so. They
will do the same for any changes recommended to tax exceptions, although they
must keep any
such adjustments revenue neutral or else they fail to contribute to
right-sizing state government. A final component to this would be their
recommendations of specific changes in practices and spending cuts to save
money – this
would be a good place to start, the majority of these suggestions as yet not
implemented. Real fiscal conservatives are those who take these steps.
3 comments:
Dude your despise for anyone who stands up and points out hypocrisy in the Jindal Administration shines brighter than the sun. It must be really miserable to have your nose so far up a politician's ass that you have to acts like a child towards anyone who even offers a small challenge to him.
Why should fees collected be treated as a source of revenue for purposes unrelated to the regulating of the activity related to the fee?
Little Jeffie, you will go blind if you do that. What is that dot on your head?
Post a Comment