On the Beebe budget
The governor released his proposed budget, and like most other lawmakers, I immediately looked for specific items that I'm planning on pursuing in the upcoming session.
Without a recommendation in the governor's budget, every legislator knows that it's an uphill battle to try and persuade 51 House members and 18 Senators to go along with something that's not part of the governor's proposed balanced budget. Not that we should emulate all things Washington, but at there are multiple budget models at that level of gov't to consider so that the Legislature -- the only branch of government authorized to make appropriations -- can consider different ways to balance the same $4.47 billion budget.
• First, the Legislature's first obligation is to provide an adequate education to the state's 474,206 students. The governor proposes a 2% increase in per-student funding, most of which is derived from growth in local property taxes. The education budget received a higher increase in the governor's proposed budget ($290,000) than any other. We'll have to make a determination as to whether that (and other efforts to maintain adequacy) meets the standard.
• Second, I wanted to see some targeted spending to give teachers (both active and retired) some relief on health insurance premiums -- to be exact, I want them to pay the same premium all other state employees pay, which only seems fair (they currently pay almost double). This isn't part of the governor's proposed budget. A boost to teachers would be an economic stimulus in itself because of the sheer number of them in the state, and it would also help to recruit teachers in areas like mine where they'll otherwise stay and teach across the border due to lower health care costs.
• Third, I'm for a further repeal of the grocery tax. It's the most regressive tax on the books, and it is possible to reduce the tax while continuing to provide essential services. There's an argument to be made that this isn't one-time money -- we've continuously accumulated at least $30 million in surplus (equals one penny of the grocery tax) for several consecutive years. Further, why should my constituents purchase groceries in Arkansas when they can just drive across the street and buy them tax-free in Texas? We only have a few grocery stores left on the Arkansas-side, and any tax reduction is actually likely to increase tax revenue in my district because shoppers will come back and shop here. Even in the most difficult of economic times, we've accumulated a budget surplus, and we've done it over several successive fiscal years.
• I could be persuaded to set aside a reasonable portion of the surplus, and I could even support some sort of trigger that would allow the governor to use it under very limited circumstances, or in an emergency. With the current spending down of the Medicaid Trust Fund and with the current economy, it would be wise to have a limited amount of money in the event it is absolutely necessary. But, it can't be called a "rainy day fund" if its purpose is to plug budget holes where needed. Also, because of Amendment 86, this is not as critical since the Legislature will convene at least annually to take up fiscal matters.
Without a recommendation in the governor's budget, every legislator knows that it's an uphill battle to try and persuade 51 House members and 18 Senators to go along with something that's not part of the governor's proposed balanced budget. Not that we should emulate all things Washington, but at there are multiple budget models at that level of gov't to consider so that the Legislature -- the only branch of government authorized to make appropriations -- can consider different ways to balance the same $4.47 billion budget.
• First, the Legislature's first obligation is to provide an adequate education to the state's 474,206 students. The governor proposes a 2% increase in per-student funding, most of which is derived from growth in local property taxes. The education budget received a higher increase in the governor's proposed budget ($290,000) than any other. We'll have to make a determination as to whether that (and other efforts to maintain adequacy) meets the standard.
• Second, I wanted to see some targeted spending to give teachers (both active and retired) some relief on health insurance premiums -- to be exact, I want them to pay the same premium all other state employees pay, which only seems fair (they currently pay almost double). This isn't part of the governor's proposed budget. A boost to teachers would be an economic stimulus in itself because of the sheer number of them in the state, and it would also help to recruit teachers in areas like mine where they'll otherwise stay and teach across the border due to lower health care costs.
• Third, I'm for a further repeal of the grocery tax. It's the most regressive tax on the books, and it is possible to reduce the tax while continuing to provide essential services. There's an argument to be made that this isn't one-time money -- we've continuously accumulated at least $30 million in surplus (equals one penny of the grocery tax) for several consecutive years. Further, why should my constituents purchase groceries in Arkansas when they can just drive across the street and buy them tax-free in Texas? We only have a few grocery stores left on the Arkansas-side, and any tax reduction is actually likely to increase tax revenue in my district because shoppers will come back and shop here. Even in the most difficult of economic times, we've accumulated a budget surplus, and we've done it over several successive fiscal years.
• I could be persuaded to set aside a reasonable portion of the surplus, and I could even support some sort of trigger that would allow the governor to use it under very limited circumstances, or in an emergency. With the current spending down of the Medicaid Trust Fund and with the current economy, it would be wise to have a limited amount of money in the event it is absolutely necessary. But, it can't be called a "rainy day fund" if its purpose is to plug budget holes where needed. Also, because of Amendment 86, this is not as critical since the Legislature will convene at least annually to take up fiscal matters.
posted by Steve Harrelson @ 11/14/2008 07:29:00 AM | Permalink |
<< Home