The House Appropriations Committee held a public hearing on its budget proposal. The Democratic view of the budget is here. The Republican assessment, by Rep. Gary Alexander, is here.
The folks who wrote the budget like it a lot. The priorities are good and similar to the governor's. Education and health care get substantial support (although from some of the comments made during the hearing you might never have known it). Rep. Alexander takes a dimmer view and raises valid objections. On the key issue of sustainability, the House budget misses the mark, as did the governor's earlier proposal. The reserve, $663 million, is not enough. And the House continues to resist a Constitutional rainy day fund.
Regardless of how you view the budget, however, there's something wrong with a process that has a noon press conference followed just hours later by a public hearing, soon to be followed by a committee vote and a push to get the thing out on the floor. Rep. Alexander's proposal to provide more time for public review made sense. Each year, it becomes more difficult to unravel the funding flows. The growing share of spending steered through dedicated funds confounds transparency.
Next week, it's the Senate's turn. If they follow suit, we're headed for a very difficult fiscal future, perhaps within the next three years. Problems that can be foreseen should be avoided.
