The REC, comprised of three politicians or their representatives and one non-elected economist, forecasts how much in the way of revenue the state will see in current and future fiscal years. As part of this exercise, it deems them recurring or nonrecurring, with the later only spendable by the state on a small set of one-time items. Beginning this year, its duties expanded when it was to forecast not just monies coming into the general fund, but also into all dedicated funds as well.
The chosen amount of recurring revenues caps the amount of money that the state may spend on its operating budget. However, creative accounting can blur the distinction between the two so the panel, perhaps guided by the skepticism of its non-politician member, did not assign all of the first round of the amnesty take to recurring status. Some of it could be considered money that would have been collected eventually thereby making it recurring, while another portion of it would be nonrecurring because it never would have been corralled without an amnesty. The political question then came down to what was the appropriate balance.