|
Here’s all you need to know to understand what is wrong with the spending philosophy of the Legislature. From House Information Services:
Waiting on an agreement Published (3/17/2008)
Progress on the House and Senate reaching agreement on a capital investment “bonding” bill is stalled, said Rep. Alice Hausman (DFL-St. Paul), the sponsor of HF380.
Although the bill passed the House March 6 and the Senate passed its companion later that day, the two bodies are not in agreement over the amount that should be spent in general obligation bonds. The House proposal would spend $954 million, but Hausman has said the “bill needs to get smaller” if it is to get past Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto pen. The Senate’s bill, SF3295, sponsored by Sen. Keith Langseth (DFL-Glyndon), however, would spend $958.8 million.
A conference committee has been named, but Hausman has not called the first meeting.
Responding to a question from House Minority Leader Marty Seifert (R-Marshall), she said, “It is an important bill and there is some urgency, but without agreement on the size of the bill, it is hard to write the first line.”
Hausman had earlier set a March 15 date to have bill ready for the governor.
What’s wrong with this picture? The emphasis is on “How much CAN we spend?” not “How much MUST we spend?” That is significant.
Government has certain specific obligations and responsibilities defined by the state and federal constitutions. These should be fully funded. Extra-constitutional functions should not be funded at all – regardless of the strength of the economy. (Why is the Legislature funding hockey arenas when the judicial system and public defender systems are underfunded?)
Hausman is absolutely wrong; the first line of the bonding bill is easy to write. It is an appropriation for a necessary capital expenditure, which means the capital investment relates to a constitutional responsibility of government and cannot be delayed for another year. The second line meets the same criteria. The last item in the bonding bill is the line above the first constitutionally legitimate expenditure that doesn’t necessarily need to be funded this year.
If the bonding bill at that point is a mere $600 million, then that’s the appropriate and legitimate level of state bonding. If indeed everything on the list is both constitutional and necessary and the total is $1 billion, well, then we have to look for other sources of revenue – first eliminating extra-constitutional or unnecessary expenditures elsewhere in the budget.
To say we must know how much we have to spend before crafting a bill is simply indicative of the political division of spoils that is the bonding bill. |
