forgotston.com

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.

1 CB 7:24 am

According to Bobby Jindal:

SB 87 [which is a reduction in the State Personal Income Tax] cut taxes for the 6th time this year and enacted the largest single tax cut in Louisiana history.

According to Bobby Jindal’s Department of Revenue spokesman:

For most, [the reduction in the State Personal Income Tax is] “rather insignificant,” …. [Mike Pearson] said that for most taxpayers it’s not worth “the time and effort involved” to file the change in withholding. Alexandria Town Talk, January 7, 2009.

Therefore, the largest tax cut in LA history is insignificant and not worth the time and effort involved to claim it.

Sounds like to me that we need a bigger tax break.

C.B.

1 CB 7:45 am

This is a follow-up to yesterday’s commentary below.

Another example

In a letter to the leges dated January 5, 2009, the head of the LA Department of Social Services (”DSS”) reported she will use $4.5 Million of surplus (one-time) FEDERAL dollars in the TANF program to replace State General Fund dollars to continue other programs administered by DSS.

All this is to say that don’t believe the scare tactics you are hearing and reading about because of the temporary (Currently climbing to near $50 per barrel in case you haven’t checked the price at the gas pumps today.) reduction in the price of a barrel of oil .

Didn’t have to happen

Lower oil prices or not, there would be no state fiscal problem for this year or next year if Bobby Jindal and the leges had not added $1 Billion in STATE revenues to the budget they just passed this summer. There were better and more fiscally-prudent options.

1) Taxpayers could have been given a one-time tax break of $1 Billion.  That would have done wonders for the economy of our state and would have paid dividends in the form of more tax revenues to the state.

2) One billion dollars could have been used to pay down the ever-growing state debt. Approximately $100 Million in annual debt service (recurring state funds) would have been freed up for other purposes in the state budget.

Under either scenario there would not be a deficit and the taxpayers would have been better served.

It’s time to tell the politicians and bureaucrats to stop the scare tactics and to start managing OUR money as if it was your own.

C.B.

1 CB 7:13 am