Post by Logan on Jun 18, 2016 21:49:00 GMT -6
Dissecting the state budget: Winners, losers, and continued mediocrity
The Rhode Island state budget for the fiscal year that commences July 1 has emerged from the House Finance Committee. By the time of the publication of this editorial, the voluminous document will have withstood a House vote, sped through the Senate Finance Committee, been voted on affirmatively in the full Senate, and arrived on Gina Raimondo’s desk.
As per usual, most House members will not have read it. And in the immortal words of former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when pressed about the Obamacare bill: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” That statement, which will live atop the catalog opera of ludicrous public official utterances, is appropriate to the Rhode Island budget process as well.
Although many of the governor’s wishes will be realized, many too will remain unrequited. The numbers in this daunting equation are similar between the administration proposal and the House result. However, the House Finance Committee version spends $25 million less than the administration. The grand astronomical state budget amount will be $8.939 billion for the next fiscal year. This skyrocketing sum has doubled in the last two decades. The year-to-year increase in this year’s budget is $276 million, thus inviting the question, has the quality and availability of goods and services improved so greatly to justify such an increase in costs when the intrinsic value of a dollar is only 54 percent different from 1996?
As with any annual budget, some citizens benefit from what those rascals on Smith Hill conjure up in their economic cauldrons, while others do not. Retirees will realize a state tax cut, however minimum wage earners will have their salaries stay status quo. But lower echelon earners will realize greater access to the Earned Income Tax Credit. Medical marijuana users will suffer a $25 per plant tagging fee, but they will not endure a higher rate desired by the governor, nor will they be restricted to in-state recommendations by doctors.
Read more: www.warwickonline.com/stories/dissecting-the-state-budget-winners-losers-and-continued-mediocrity,113510
The Rhode Island state budget for the fiscal year that commences July 1 has emerged from the House Finance Committee. By the time of the publication of this editorial, the voluminous document will have withstood a House vote, sped through the Senate Finance Committee, been voted on affirmatively in the full Senate, and arrived on Gina Raimondo’s desk.
As per usual, most House members will not have read it. And in the immortal words of former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when pressed about the Obamacare bill: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” That statement, which will live atop the catalog opera of ludicrous public official utterances, is appropriate to the Rhode Island budget process as well.
Although many of the governor’s wishes will be realized, many too will remain unrequited. The numbers in this daunting equation are similar between the administration proposal and the House result. However, the House Finance Committee version spends $25 million less than the administration. The grand astronomical state budget amount will be $8.939 billion for the next fiscal year. This skyrocketing sum has doubled in the last two decades. The year-to-year increase in this year’s budget is $276 million, thus inviting the question, has the quality and availability of goods and services improved so greatly to justify such an increase in costs when the intrinsic value of a dollar is only 54 percent different from 1996?
As with any annual budget, some citizens benefit from what those rascals on Smith Hill conjure up in their economic cauldrons, while others do not. Retirees will realize a state tax cut, however minimum wage earners will have their salaries stay status quo. But lower echelon earners will realize greater access to the Earned Income Tax Credit. Medical marijuana users will suffer a $25 per plant tagging fee, but they will not endure a higher rate desired by the governor, nor will they be restricted to in-state recommendations by doctors.
Read more: www.warwickonline.com/stories/dissecting-the-state-budget-winners-losers-and-continued-mediocrity,113510