After the online publication and leftist-funded New Orleans Lens ran a piece
implying growing harmony between them and the liberal House Democrats, some of
the principals of the group of Republicans known as the “fiscal hawks” tried
to distance themselves from the characterization. In all fairness, the intersession
meetings held that had representation of Democrat leaders have happened in
years past and only now seem to draw attention because during the past legislative
session it was a combination of Democrats and “hawks” that prompted significant
changes to the original budget for this year backed by Gov. Bobby
Jindal, other House Republicans, and Senate Republicans.
But, to continue this post’s abnormal reliance on cliché/aphorism “actions
speak louder than words.” The fact is, the reason why these meetings involving “hawk”
leaders caught the attention of a Soros cyber-reporter and become newsworthy
this year is because of the “hawks’” embrace by deeds during the session of the
left’s legislative agenda.
Recall that the “hawks”
initially proposed a budget that contained $327 million in tax increases,
mostly on business. When that went over like a (wait for it) lead balloon, because
their union with Democrats gave them a tactical majority, they were able to
foist a small tax increase upon business and boost spending (beyond that accounted
for by additional revenues recognized late in the session), mainly through a tax
amnesty gimmick of questionable validity, by some $400 million over that
Jindal and other Republicans had preferred initially.
In other words, the “hawks” allowed themselves to get rolled by an otherwise
powerless minority party in order to grow government on a less-stable revenue
base. And they did it in a way that, if one takes seriously their contention
that they are interested in creating more stable funding mechanisms that connote
spending reductions, that was completely against type. Given these facts, it’s
hard not to conclude that they are (here we go again) liberal wolves in
conservative sheep’s clothing.
In reality, it’s more accurate to judge them as political opportunists more
concerned about publicity than with principle. From the start they appear to
have wanted to cultivate this image that they are “reformers,” but haven’t
wanted to do the real work to earn that label because it would require too much
political courage and would generate not enough positive headlines or a
narrative they can control. They did propose some minor
reforms to budgetary procedures in the past session, a couple of which but
with some warts did make it into law.
But much of that agenda was built upon the bogeyman of “one-time money,”
or recurring funds collected from sources outside of the state general fund and
nonrecurring money from things like asset sales and legal settlements that end
up getting used for activities covered in the general fund. This exists because
of a fiscal structure that dedicates money with little regard to the actual need
and priority of the expenditures to which they are tied. With excess funds
piling up, siphoning them out to be used for higher-priority needs is an undesirable
but necessary corrective to the current flawed system. The solution, then, is
not to forswear use of this kind of money, but to change the system that makes
its presence necessary.
Instead, the “hawks” base their policies around treating the one-time
money symptom rather than trying to eradicate the disease of the straitjacketed
fiscal structure, precisely because it would be tough work to buck special
interests and because they could no longer fall back upon the excuse that they
can’t make hard budgetary choices because government is on auto-pilot. It makes
them less likely to get reelected as they have to assume greater responsibility
for their spending decisions and the electoral consequences thereof, whereas it’s
so much easier to proclaim themselves guardians of the public weal and aim at
policy long on symbol but which does little to address the substance of the
issue.
The last thing the “hawks” want is to lose control of the narrative and
be identified as fellow-traveling Democrats to their conservative districts,
and that they supported a massive tax increase and grew government is not what
they want the public to know, hence the defensiveness with which they have
reacted to these reports. But, again, actions speak louder than words. If in
the 2014 regular session they were to advance legislation to begin to loosen
dedications and to base revenue collection on the basis of what government
actually should do and by priority, and continue those in 2015 and add to this unwinding
wasteful tax exceptions, only then do they demonstrate that they understand
truly what causes the state to so poorly match revenues to genuine needs, and
thereby garner real reform credentials.
3 comments:
Holy geez what a dumb post.
I love how this "fiscal hawk" groups gets the panties of the Jindal idolizers all knotted up.
Why, pray tell, after five years plus of Jindal's reign, do we still have (as you describe it) "... a fiscal structure that dedicates money with little regard to the actual need and priority of the expenditures to which they are tied ..." (along with five, going on six, straight years of mid-year budget cuts)?
Why hasn't King Jindal established "... the solution ..." you speak of?
Same old strategy - demonize the "hawks" so you don't have to address the real issues!
NO COMMENT, huh, Profeesor.
Just a coward and bully, like your idol, our Governor.
Stay in hiding!!!
Post a Comment