Merry Christmas, General Assembly
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
10 responses to “Merry Christmas, General Assembly”
-
I agree, that is the largest unexpended balance I can recall. And I suspect more will be available before the final decisions are made in February/March. State employee raises will be competing against low income tax relief.
-
Northam went beyond leaving this as an unexpended balance. The money was appropriated as an uncommitted contingency. The distinction is subtle, but important. Revenue cannot be spent unless there is an appropriation. If this revenue were left as an unexpended balance, it could not be spent. As an appropriation, unless the GA does something, the governor would be free to spend it when the budget went into effect.
-
-
Isn’t this a lot like throwing chum to sharks?
-
I like that analogy!
-
-
Is this to distract the sharks from his own proposals?
😉
-
That could be the intent. It certainly could be the effect.
-
-
How about returning it to the people from whom it came?
How about holding until the recession causes shortfalls?
So easy to be grandiose with other people’s money.-
He is proposing some healthy additions to the reserves, too. As to returning it or using it for tax reform, that was on the table only until the election…..Lucy and the football.
I also love the analogy of throwing chum to sharks. Will steal it at some point. 🙂
-
There is a chum shortage (Virginia’s over-harvested Menhaden) guess now we know why.
-
-
-
Money that is not recurring – probably should not be used to fund recurring budget items.
so some of the budget items in Northam s budget are not recurring – like money going into rainy day – that’s purely budget-to-budget depending on what is available (or not).
But money going to things like pre-school or other programs that will go on year after year – they should not be funded the first year with one-time money with no fiscal plan for the next budget year.
That’s an argument that WILL influence progressives who also are fiscally conservative – yes they do exist.
IN terms of “give it back” – I’d argue that if the money provides an important service – like universal pre school or opioid or mental services that it iS being “given back” especially if not having those services actually will generate additional tax burdens downstream.
“investing” in govt budgets is NOT like investing in private sector commerce – no question because the “return” on such investment is not easily quantified is a bottom-line dollar amount.
but make no mistake – each disadvantaged kid that grows up without a decent education IS going to impose costs on taxpayers… or not providing necessarily mental services may well lead to other taxpayer costs – “giving it back” is not just a money back to taxpayer proposition.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.