QUESTION: When does a budget “cut” not result in less spending?

ANSWER: When the “cut” is made by the Bobby Jindal Administration.

Melinda Deslatte of the Associated Press reveals some of the more obvious sleights of hand in her latest column. ( See here.)

A few examples:

1. The LA Department of Health and Hospitals (”DHH”), instead of reducing spending merely replaces state dollars with Federal dollars.

2. DHH is “cutting” its budget by not filling VACANT positions. Nobody will lose their job.

3. The LA Secretary of State’s “cut” will be covered by money for an election not held.

4. State employees may lose their current jobs only to be hired by other state agencies. No paychecks will be missed.

It all begs the question: Is finding and spending excess money to avoid a deficit the same as “cutting the budget” as claimed by the Jindal Administration?

It appears that the only thing that has been reduced in the overall state budget is the anticipated surplus at the end of the current fiscal year.

Kudos to Melinda!

Next we need to know: 1) How much unencumbered money is currently available in the various state slush/contingency funds? 2) How much surplus will the state have at the end of this fiscal year?

C.B.