Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely. This publishes five days weekly with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).
14.2.17
Edwards, GOP legislators live on different planets
Louisiana Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards is from
Mars, legislative Republicans are from Venus. I chose the ordering since
Edwards once served as a professional warrior and some GOP legislators are
women. I chose the metaphor to illustrate the completely incompatible mindset
of the two that threatens to launch fireworks during the state’s whirlwind special
session.
Edwards pulled the starting gun trigger on it last
night by speaking
mainly to the virtues of using Budget Stabilization Fund Money. As
policy-makers grapple with a $304 million deficit fighting a ticking clock registering
just four-and-a-half months remaining in the fiscal year, use of the Fund has emerged
as the biggest point of contention between the governor and Republican-led
Legislature to solve for the shortfall.
In the speech, Edwards noted the short time frame and
his belief that a straitjacketed fiscal structure begging for reform presented
few options other than use of $119.6 million in Fund money. Citing its creation
as a means to address short-term budgetary crunches and past use in what he saw
as less critical times, failure to dip into it he alleged would force
undesirable cuts into areas his current plan using Fund money to close the gap
would avoid. He argued that, past this hurdle, soon the state could start
attending to fiscal reform that should alleviate such problems in the future.
He tacked this way in order to fend off
sentiments, mainly among House Republicans, who want to use for resolution fewer
or no Fund dollars while making deeper spending cuts. In essence, he asked for
bonus money now with a pledge to restructure revenues later so that in the
future recurring funds would obviate need to dip into the Fund – all in the
service of “rebuilding Louisiana,” a process he identified beginning last year
with large taxes increases and modest expenditure reduction.
However, such a view remains incongruent with the
mindset of those Republicans. Realize that Edwards sees the problem as
insufficient revenue generated for a sufficient amount of spending that needs
Fund money immediately but that in future structural fiscal changes will boost
that amount of revenue. In other words, the amount of spending (including
roughly $60 million in cuts he proposes) constitutes an absolute floor and that
the state must match revenues to adjust to that, upwards.
This runs entirely counter to many Republicans’
desires. They see the variable measure needing adjustment as spending, a
problem of excessive spending – whether defining that as dollars doled out to
support a government function or forgone in collection as result of a tax break
or fees not covering adequately costs to pay for a specific government service
rendered – while the proportion of dollars taken from the people – in terms of
income, sales, excise, and property taxes – should remain relatively fixed that
produces a sufficient amount of revenue. In other words, the amount of revenues
generated from existing marginal rates on income, sales, excise and property
taxes – if not the lower amount prior to the rate changes of last year –
constitutes the absolute floor and that the state must match expenditures to adjust
to that, downwards.
That’s why they hesitate to use some or all of the
Fund and want to cut spending now, because the absolute spending level is the
problem and the Fund only acts as an analgesic that palliates but ignores the underlying
disease of overspending. In contrast, Edwards sees the absolute amount of revenues
as the problem, so he wants structural changes to increase those rather than
reducing expenditures, meaning Fund use now bridges to the future where he can change
things to capture more money.
The two views are irreconcilable. Edwards’
argument convinces only by adopting his premise that Louisiana does not spend
too much but raises too little. That a significant number of Republicans reject
that thinking, probably enough to meet the one-third requirement to veto Fund
use, forecasts pyrotechnics to come in the next few days.
No comments:
Post a Comment