During June’s special session that resolved the state’s
operating budget, despite knowledge of the impending economic dislocation
courtesy of Edwards proclamations shutting down large portions of the state’s economy
as a response to the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, Edwards and Dardenne presented
a budget
that shrank government not one bit. This discouraged the Republican
majority Legislature from resisting, and it acquiesced in expanding government at
a time that revenues demonstrably would shrink.
But the GOP-led chambers didn’t completely
abdicate. One measure they imposed to rein in unnecessary spending prohibited
appropriation of $57 million to fund programmed pay raises for state civil
service employees. These occur automatically annually unless the State Civil Service
Commission acts to mitigate these. Legislators said that they couldn’t see their
way to using extra taxpayer resources on this when almost none of these
employees had experienced job loss or furloughs while a significant portion of nongovernment
sector employees had, with that held back money more usefully applied to relief
for nongovernment workers.
In response, Edwards
cast a line item veto against that stricture, falsely claiming that it
contravened the constitutional power of the SCSC to decide upon compensation.
It did nothing of the sort; it merely said that certain monies couldn’t be used
for the raises, meaning that if these went through that agencies would have to
scrounge around their existing budgets to fund raises. With the money specifically
there (and the budget kept in balance through other Edwards line item vetoes),
the SCSC
dutifully took no action against the raises at its July meeting.
It didn’t take the chickens long to come home and
roost. Last week, Dardenne had to defend the action in a meeting
of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget required so as to reveal the
Edwards Administration’s plans to deal with the coming deficit because of suppressed
revenues. He said the spending needed to happen anyway because the SCSC showed
no “inkling” that it wanted to compensate for the increases by instituting layoff
avoidance plans in affected agencies.
This dissembled in two ways. First, the SCSC could
have ushered the raises through without such a plan, leaving it up to the
agencies to find money within their existing resources. In fact, the excised budget language
ordered Dardenne to do this and sequester the money in a fund, but that this
could be reviewed by Oct. 15 and potentially released, merely delaying funds
reception to back raises. If not changed, the $57 million or so would have remained
available for other uses – like towards the looming revenue shortfall.
Second, Dardenne conveyed the misimpression that Edwards
had no influence over the SCSC. In fact, Edwards has appointed every single
member of the body except the elected employee representative. And two of them
he’ll have a chance to reappoint, Scott Hughes and Jo Ann Nixon. While the Constitution
tries to insulate the body from the majoritarian branches – private college
leaders each give three names for selection by the governor – the fact is each member
was chosen instead of two others because of the governor, and two of them will
depend upon him for reappointment. To say a governor could not have influenced
the panel to compensate for the raises to save the money ignores political
reality and distracts from the truth rather than informs.
But that the story Dardenne tried to shovel, to
obscure the fact that Edwards is the responsible party for blowing $57 million
more on government when the state’s people outside of it are hurting far more. Keep
in mind that Edwards’ strategy to navigate the coming fiscal crisis – with the
next fiscal year’s general fund deficit already estimated at nearly $700
million – is to preserve as much government as possible and hope first for the
federal government to bail out his profligacy but if not then go through his usual
routine of demanding tax increases or else cut important services.
Either way, taxpayers fork over more. The alternative
of putting a lid on spending isn’t on Edwards’ radar, as the priorities he
showed on this matter demonstrate.
No comments:
Post a Comment