Amended budget passes

The amended FY 2008 budget passed this morning, six legislators voted against it.

One interesting note, there was a rule change in the House that prevented amendments from being offered:

Rule 108.3 No amendment to any appropriations bill shall be in order if the amendment has the effect of both reducing one appropriation and either increasing another appropriation or adding a new appropriation. No amendment to any appropriations bill increasing any appropriation or adding a new appropriation shall be in order unless there has previously been adopted an amendment reducing some other appropriation so as to make funds available for such new or increased appropriation; and no amendment to any appropriations bill shall be in order which would cause the bill to violate the balanced budget requirements of the Constitution.

This is something that I’d expect out of Democrats, in fact I believe that Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) did try something like this on the federal level. He also wanted to wait until conference to insert earmarks into appropriations bills. A similar idea was floated by Georgia House Majority Leader Jerry Keen.

There already isn’t much transparency in the budget process here in Georgia. I guess debate is pointless too.

[UPDATE] Who voted against it? Tom Graves, Bobby Franklin, Steve Davis, Barry Loudermilk, Martin Scott and Doug Holt. All Republicans, all members of the 216 Group. Here is a copy of the statement released by the six legislators provided by the Political Insider.

9 comments

  1. Rpolitic says:

    Jason I am not sure if that is an added rule. I know that when I worked in the minority office we had to develop a cut and add approach. The deal was you could not alter the budget because it comes in as presented balanced at x dollars so to move money to another area you need to cut money first.

  2. Jason Pye says:

    It looks like it was added. Amendments that would have stripped funding were offered during debate on the FY 2007A and FY 2008 budgets during the last session.

  3. Rpolitic says:

    Did the amendments get ruled out of order by the chair? or did they site that particular rule. I know that when Earl et. al. took over they had all of these changes to the calendars, structured, modified, modified structured, polka dotted what ever nonsense that may have been the cause.

  4. Jason Pye says:

    It was a “modified structured rule” for this legislation only. So there was no change to the rules.

    With respect to this, whether or not it is a rule doesn’t make it good policy. It was used to keep amendments from being offered on the floor of the House and shut down debate.

  5. Chris says:

    Citizens of these towns are urged to evacuate immediately as the speakers troops have been seen gathering with cannons near the state capitol.

  6. Icarus says:

    It’s O.K. Chris,

    The speaker usually orders his troops into a circular formation before ordering them to fire their weapons. Then, after the logical conclusion, he blames the Senate.

  7. joe says:

    I tend to read both the rule and the dissenting statement differently. To me, the rule allows all of the decrease amendments anybody could want, and only allows an increase if there has been a previous decrease.

    The 216 Group statement seems to say that the budget failed to decrease spending and in fact increased it.

    Both are quite reasonable, unfortunately the House decided that more is better.

    And Icarus is right.

Comments are closed.