The founders of our State, just like the founders of our nation, wrote constitutions that created three coequal branches for our government with clear lines of authority. In regard to taxing and the spending of tax money, the legislature passes a budget into law which is signed by the executive. Thereafter, it is the executive responsibility to spend the money as it is appropriated by the legislature. Under this model, if income to the government is below expectations, the executive would withhold expenditures to make up for the shortfall.
Missouri’s State Constitution is very clear about when the governor has the power to withhold funds appropriated by the General Assembly. It states, “(the governor) may reduce the expenditures of the state or any of its agencies below their appropriations whenever the actual revenues are less than the revenue estimates upon which the appropriations were based” Article IV Section 27. Until recently, there was a general understanding that this meant simply that the governor can withhold money only when revenue is short of estimates.
Starting in his first term, Governor Jay Nixon charted a different course. He began withholding money even when revenue was coming in as predicted. He would then sometimes later release the funds, but other times he would spend money on other items that had not been approved by the legislature in the budget. Indeed, our current governor has never gone through a fiscal year without issuing withholds, even despite having one of the most explosive growth rates on record in fiscal year 2013 (over 10% growth). Despite the Constitutional restrictions, he has gone so far as to withhold dollars to build a fund balance to carry over money for his favorite projects to the following year.
This January, the Governor proposed the largest spending increase and largest budget in the history of the State all while continuing to withhold $135 million in the current fiscal year’s appropriations. Missouri’s current chief executive is treating Missouri’s Treasury as is personal funds with little consideration for the decisions made by the elected representatives of our citizens.
Last year, the Governor used K-12 education and higher education as political bargaining chips by withholding their funding for leverage to defeat a tax cut (HB253). There have been court challenges to this practice, but Missouri’s courts so far have been unwilling to force the governor to abide by or State Constitution. Representative Todd Richardson, Poplar Bluff, has filed a proposed Constitutional Amendment which, if approved by voters, would give the legislature a method of challenging the governor’s actions.
House Joint Resolution 72 establishes a constitutional protection from the Governor withholding from the State’s public debt and bond liabilities to ensure the State pays its debts and protects the taxpayers from our credit rating being decreased. Otherwise, if the legislature believes withholds are not in the best interest of the state or the taxpayers, the General Assembly may, by a 2/3rds vote in both chambers override the governor’s withhold in the same manner as a veto override.
HJR 72 requires the governor to inform the General Assembly when he reduces an appropriation or changes the rate of expenditure and those changes must stand up to legislative scrutiny. This is why I strongly support the passage of the resolution which will go to the voters later this year. With the passage of HJR 72, and its approval by the voters, the Governor would no longer be able to use the education of our children for leverage in his political games.
No comments:
Post a Comment