A Peek behind Legislative Leaders’ Spending Rhetoric

Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and House Speaker Philip Gunn are touting their great success this year in holding down the cost of government.

“We Republicans have campaigned for many, many years that we are for living within our means, we are for controlling spending, we are for reducing the size of government,” Gunn told reporters according to the Associated Press.

Reeves added, “That’s what voters elected us to do. They elected us to live within our means,” reported the AP. “They believe they ought to send less money to the government. They believe that they are already overtaxed and overburdened.”

Sounds like a good plan that came together, huh?  Well, only if it’s a sneaky deep state scheme to disrupt rather than reduce spending.

Voters might want to peek behind the rhetoric.

You see, legislators didn’t really plan to spend less. Most cuts Reeves and Gunn are taking credit for result from mid-year budget cuts ordered by Gov. Phil Bryant. Legislators wanted to spend more money, but when the revenue didn’t come in to cover the bills, Bryant had to take action. In so doing he forced the state to live within its means and he reduced the size of government, not legislators. Legislators, then, had little choice but to roll these forced cuts into the budget for next fiscal year since revenues continue to lag.

This adds to the growing notion that our legislative leaders really don’t know what they’re doing with state finances. Oh, they know how to cut taxes, but, apparently, not how to anticipate and manage the consequences. Over several years they pushed through a multitude of tax cuts with little idea what the impact would be. They touted resulting economic growth would generate revenues to offset the tax cuts.  Oops, the growth didn’t happen, the offset didn’t happen, and Bryant had to step in. Oh, even bigger “growth” spurring tax cuts kick-in next January.

Indeed, reduced spending was not supposed to stem from revenue shortfalls. Instead, a new performance-based budgeting system was to identify programs whose funding could be curtailed or eliminated. Oops, the performance-based budgeting system isn’t up to speed yet, so cuts were generally across-the-board, impacting high performing and essential programs as well as poorly performing and non-essential programs.

Then, there are cuts that aren’t real cuts. For example, legislators cut college scholarship funds. They also cut funding for community colleges that will result in tuition and fee increases. Oops, with these changes legislators didn’t so much live within their means as shift the burden from the state to parents.

“A tuition increase is going to be necessary,” Pearl River Community College President William Lewis told the Hattiesburg American. Jones County Junior College President Jesse Smith said his college will have to “increase our tuition significantly to make up the gap.”

Cuts to other programs will shift costs from state government to local government, forcing many to increase property taxes. Oops, these shifted costs aren’t real cuts either.

Yep, peek behind the rhetoric and you see lots of oopses, not a coherent plan.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s