Last week, the House voted on a supplemental budget bill designed to reduce the state's $935 million budget deficit. I voted against it because it relied too much on one-time spending and tax increases and not enough in spending reductions.
The bill raises revenues by a total of $232 million this biennium through a series of tax and fee increases (mainly on businesses) and compliance. It also takes $350 million from our cash flow account and $250 million from our budget reserve. And it only reduces overall government spending by $128 million out a $34.5 billion budget.
It's disappointing because we're in a recession, and our legislative leadership is asking taxpayers for more money. We need a long-term solution because state economists are already projecting a billion dollar deficit for next year. Nearly emptying out our savings account and not reducing wasteful spending is a fiscally irresponsible, short-term fix at best.
I was also discouraged by the method the majority party used in crafting the budget reduction bill, as the 300-page bill covered more than a dozen budget areas. When I explain to folks that I was forced to vote on one bill dealing with state government, education, higher education, sex education, environment, natural resources, energy, agriculture, veterans affairs, military affairs, jobs and economic development, transportation, public safety, courts, human services, nursing homes, long-term care facilities, judiciary, housing, public health, health department, abortion, human services, taxation, fees, penalties, fund transfers, appropriating money and reducing money, they understand my frustration.
Because the legislation deals with more than one subject area, it is highly likely that it is unconstitutional. It's difficult to vote "yes" or "no" on a vote like this because the legislation is loaded with thousands of provisions, some of which are good and some of which are bad. But the bill is so fiscally irresponsible that it was easy to vote against it.
