A third mid-year spending holdback is now likely, a co-chairman of the Legislature’s joint budget committee said Tuesday, and one Senate Democrat responded by saying tax increases should now be considered.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Dean Cameron, R-Rupert, told Idaho Health & Welfare Director Dick Armstrong during the department’s budget hearing to expect another cut before fiscal year 2010 ends June 30.
In September, Gov. Butch Otter ordered cuts that averaged 4 percent. Last week, he said another 1.6 percent reduction would be necessary to meet the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. But lower than expected revenues in December have prompted the Republicans who control the Legislature to talk of further fiscal 2010 cuts.
Sen. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise, a member of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, told Cameron and the rest of the 20-member committee that the Legislature should consider raising taxes.
“We do really need to have a discussion about taxes,” LeFavour said. “When we say we don’t have any alternative but to cut, I think we’re being disingenuous.”
During a break after LeFavour's comments, Cameron said there is little support among Republicans for a tax increase, an option that has been ruled out by Otter, also a Republican.
"I believe attempting to raise revenue in this economic climate will not generate additional dollars," Cameron said. "It will force businesses to close and layoff employees. It would compound the problem."
Cameron said he raised the issue of further cuts Tuesday as a warning to all state agencies. "We don't have any other choice. I think it's disingenuous not to follow the constitution."
As for the size of a third mid-year holdback, Cameron said he doesn't have a number in mind, but said $25 million is saved for every 1 percent cut. December revenues were about $13 million below projections.
During the hearing, Cameron asked Armstrong to detail how he would make additional spending cuts “because in all likelihood, that’s what you’re going to be faced with.”
Armstrong said office closures and layoffs are likely. “We will probably have to look at the closure of some offices…which will ultimately lead to layoffs,” he said.
That would mean the department’s goal of giving benefit applicants same-day service will be difficult to meet, Armstrong said. People past a certain point in line would likely be told that they couldn’t be served that day and asked to return another time, he said.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
Govt getting......
SMALLER, SMALler, Smaller, smaller--it must drive the
dem/lib/socialist crazy............GOOD
Do the math
The Idaho state budget grew from a little over $2 billion in 2004 to nearly $3 billion in 2009 - a 48% increase. The problem isn't that taxes are too low, the problem is that the Idaho government has spent at record levels for the last 5 years. Raising taxes in Idaho, which already has the worst tax structure in the Northwest, will only prolong unemployment.
Why are state expenses double GDP growth?
I tend to be a liberal but I try not to make a religion of it. I think you raise a good point. I looked up the GDP in Idaho. In 2004 it was $42.6 billion. In 2009, $53 Billion. That works out to be about a 24% increase. Assuming your figures are accurate, why did government expenses almost double our state's increase in GDP over the same five year period in this republican state? It would be nice to see a televised hearing on that subject on a still existent, statewide PBS broadcast. See, to me, when PBS is made to suffer, that's a sign there is a big problem with our state's handling of money.
Tighten the Belt
When times were good the income from growth was there so local government grew. Times are no longer good...time for local government to shrink. Raising taxes in a falling economy how does this make sense?
The problem is....
demand for public services goes up during a recession. Raising taxes and eliminating tax loopholes is the only responsible thing to do.
Raising taxes
Unfortunately when taxes are raised it is not an equal raise. Single individuals end up subsidizing families. User fees and a head tax would be equitable.
Raising Taxes is always an easy solution
If it weren't so maddening I might find it comical that democrats always come to the easy answer "raise taxes". It is as if they believe that the government was created by the people to be an almsman rather that to protect individual freedoms. Perhaps these conclusions are drawn from their lack of willingness to give personally coupled with a desire that their conscience be soothed collectively.
I am a proponent of caring for others in need through private means. The Red Cross is a prime example of an organization that fills such needs and Americans are happy to be a part of their efforts. Churches are another good example of charitable kindness.
Here in lies the problem for many who oppose all organized religion. They have a need for their conscience to be soothed when they see someone in need, their morality of no one should be subjected to trial on any level demands it, they want to see someone take care of the problem... just not them. The problem is that when a government gets in the business of legislating morality... any morality... they have endorsed one morality over another which is at odds with law.
It occurs to me that if we are going to create budget items for each niche of adversity then we must balance it by legislating Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Secularist, Environmentalist, and any other organization that has some moral value that they feel strongly about...
or ...
perhaps we need to cleanse our governmental budgets of all moral pork. Seeing that I am an infidel in the eyes of Muslims with no intent to ever convert, segments of our morality will always be at odds, some legislation viewed as moral to Muslims will penalize me. That violates my individual rights, does it not?
In our system the government garners its rights from the people. The primary reason God is invoked in our bill of rights, is to underscore that our rights are derived not from our government, but a higher source. In doing so the government is stripped of any ability to legislate away the rights of the people. By the same token the government can possess no right the constitution or the people do not expressly grant it. I personally disagree with many items included in the budget. I have moral and ethical disagreements with many things my tax dollars go to support. I find coerced wealth redistribution reprehensible all the while I donate willingly to a church and the Red Cross as do many Americans.
I propose that we strip this government to a bare minimum, gutting all peripheral agencies of any government funding. That we get back to the business of the people, for the people, by the people. Service should be just that... service! We need to have people who serve not for the benefits of the governments country club of perks and health benefits, but for the love of the people and the betterment of all not just those who espouse the morality of the day.