Budget agonistes
LAWMAKERS have10 days to pass the budget bill sent to them by the governor over five months ago. Failure to do so will result in a partial government shutdown. But failure is out of the question, especially in an election year.
In any case, those who have been following the budget process on Capital Hill will notice the inability or unwillingness of many lawmakers to make major decisions about the budget. When it comes to the annual budget deliberations, the Legislature — the House specifically — functions like an agency of the governor’s office. Or as the House Ways and Means chair would put it, “Whatever is handed to us is what we have and whatever is short is our fault, that’s the stress we get. I want to make that clear because a lot of times the community blames this body for the proposal that the administration sends to us.”
So much for the Legislature’s “power of the purse.”
Take note that whatever the governor’s budget proposal is, lawmakers, in theory, have the duty to scrutinize and, if need be, amend it. It is doubtful, however, if all lawmakers or many of them actually read the budget bill in its entirety — tables and spreadsheets included. Whatever amendments they may offer are usually about piddling matters that the governor, if he so wishes, can line-item veto. But so far, we haven’t heard anyone in the House or the Senate question out loud whether the administration’s revenue projections for FY 2025 are realistic, and what are the consequences if they’re not. No one has pointed out the existence of redundant government entities with overlapping tasks, and the need to consolidate and/or abolish offices so there can be more funding for “critical services.”
For the governor, the goal is “to protect the livelihoods of our government employees as well as the critical services upon which our entire community depends.” In other words, status quo.
Considering the parlous state of the economy and the government’s hand-to-mouth situation, elected officials must prioritize their spending. But no. According to the governor, businesses, consumers and other taxpayers should just pay more taxes and fees so that this bloated government can remain bloated.
Whatever happened to the campaign pledges of “fiscal responsibility” and “living within our means”?
Gone with the wind of “change”?
If it moves, tax it; if it’s still moving, tax it more
ONCE the newly elected lawmakers are sworn in early next year, expect a renewed push for higher taxes and/or fees, including those that would “earmark” a portion of the collections to agencies that provide “critical services.” But that’s wishful thinking, especially if the economy remains stagnant. Assuming, for argument’s sake, that tax/fee hikes result in additional collection, where do you think that money goes? To the government’s most pressing financial obligations, of course: payroll for its employees and the pension checks of its retirees. Don’t forget: in times of “financial emergency,” the government can suspend earmarks.
But again, this assumes that imposing additional financial burdens on taxpayers won’t lead to higher prices, fewer sales, downsizing, pay cuts, or layoffs — each of which is likely to reduce, rather than increase, revenue for this avaricious government.
Besides higher taxes and fees, what else can we look forward to under this current leadership? Probably more assurances that the federal cavalry is coming, and federally funded boondoggles are the way out of this economic morass.
TT days, here we come!
