DID YOU KNOW?
SB 105 in some ways is like a ticking time bomb. On the one hand, it attempts to bring some clarity to how “total state revenue receipts” are defined, as Sen Pres. Don Hines claimed. On the other hand, as Sen. Robert Barham argued, it unconstitutionally tries to amend the Constitution by statute. Nor did Barham agree that “total state revenue receipts” was ambiguous, pointing to previous legislation and attorney general rulings that defines the term.
The practical effect is that under Hines’ interpretation, it narrows the definition so less money could be recognized as revenue relevant to the strictures of the Budget Stabilization Fund, so more money would be loosed to be spent immediately, up to $194 million at present. Barham asked the parliamentarian to rule on whether the matter was as he argued, but that was rejected as beyond the Senate’s competence, meaning the matter is likely to be decided by the courts.
Sen. Robert Adley wanted to see in the Constitution where it was defined connected to the Fund. Sen. Jay Dardenne argued that as the phrase was defined in one part of the Constitution (dealing with the Interim Emergency Board’s estimates), so the same phrase used elsewhere in another part (dealing with the Fund) should mean the same thing.
Sen. Tom Schedler called for not being hasty with this legislation, that prudence was best when financial uncertainties abounded, and that this was a constitutional issue that would be settled by suit, meaning the money would not be available anyway. Adley contended he was not convinced of the constitutional question. He also said the Legislature had to act as a family and should keep its criticism of itself to itself, and then addressed reporters directly, saying they transmitted too much bad news. “We’re a donor to this country, not a taker,” he argued should be reported. He said too many people in the “family” used the media to spread their agenda of “bad news.”
Hines reminded that it would not go into affect until next year, meaning cuts made would not be restored with the redefinition (although that doesn’t mean they won’t be in the January special session). The bill passed 22-14, on almost a party-line vote, with the only Democrat voting against it being Sen. Willie Mount, while the only Republican voting for it (predictably) was Sen. Sherri Smith Cheek.
Given its dubious constitutionality and threat to fiscal integrity, this has been added to the “bad bill” list.
MORE OF THE BAD: SB 113 by Edwin Murray largely mirrors the stultifying provisions of HB 167, outlawing “unfair” residential rents, leaving it up to the Attorney General to decide what is “unfair.” This is way too subjective and interfering in market conditions to be good public policy.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
“Instead of talking about what’s bad, talk about all the good things we’ve done.”
Adley, during his rambling defense of voting for SB 105.
SCORECARD:
Total House introductions: 168; total Senate introductions: 113.
Total House good bills: 6; total Senate good bills: 6.
Total House bad bills: 12; total Senate bad bills: 7.
Total House good bills heard in committee: 5; total Senate good bills heard in committee: 4.
Total House bad bills heard in committee: 10; total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 6
Total House good bills passing committee: 5; total Senate good bills passing committee: 2.
Total House bad bills passing committee: 5; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 2
Total House good bills passing House: 4; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 2
Total House bad bills passing House: 0; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 1
Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 1; Total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 0
Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 1; Total Senate good bills passing House committee: 4
No comments:
Post a Comment