UPDATED: House taking up budgets today

The State House is taking up the FY 2007 amended budget right now and they’ll take up the FY 2008 budget later in the afternoon. You can watch online here.

[UPDATE – 2:06pm] The House and Senate have passed the FY 2007 amended budget unanimously. The discussion on the FY 2008 budget has just gotten underway in the House.

[UPDATE – 3:30pm] State Rep. Dan Lakly proposed an amendment to strip some, if not all, funding for “Go Fish.” The amendment failed 9 to 146.

[UPDATE – 3:32pm] The FY 2008 budget passed the State House by a vote of 156 to 7.

3 comments

  1. Icarus says:

    Sincere Thanks to Rep Lakly for trying to represent the principles of the party that he represents.

  2. sndeak says:

    I’d rather see that 142M go back into restoring the original levels of PeachCare as well as part of it for the Rainy Day fund and some sort of rural alternative fuels economic incentive program.

  3. jsm says:

    I know some are tired of hearing about the wrangling on this, but I heard from State Rep. James Mills on Saturday at a local GOP meeting. He explained the budget process and how the supplemental fits into the state’s financial strategy. He was very informative and explained the issue in a way that I thought was easily understood. Basically, he said that the supplemental budget is meant to cover costs that the state either didn’t foresee (i.e. tornado damage in Americus) or couldn’t justify (i.e. growth in public school enrollments) at the time the yearly budget was put together. He also mentioned that the governor’s revenue estimate is always intentionally low to avoid a budget shortfall and usually results in a revenue surplus during the year that can be utilized by the supplemental budget.

    Based on his explanation, I agree with using the supplemental budget to fund necessary items and emergency items. However, there is still no justification for funding pork projects.

    As a side note, I asked Rep. Mills directly if he had opposed the supplemental budget in the past, and he admitted that he had because of how it was used as a windfall to fund pet projects by the former democratic leadership.

    He told me that he hopes this fight will streamline the supplemental budget process in the future, so that legislators no longer look at the supplemental budget as a big pot of free money for bringing home the bacon.

    I enjoyed hearing from the source on this issue. I heard Lt. Gov. Cagle speak on this in March, and having heard both sides, I’m confident the supplemental budget has its place if handled with proper fiscal restraint.

Comments are closed.