Louisiana House Bill HB1101

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Prohibits appropriations to a nongovernmental entity when there is a decrease in the official forecast (OR SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)

Impact

If enacted, HB 1101 would significantly impact how state budgets are structured and would limit the ability of various organizations, particularly nongovernmental entities, to rely on state funding during times of financial uncertainty. By establishing a direct correlation between revenue projections and funding opportunities, the bill aims to safeguard the state's budgetary integrity, potentially reducing the number of programs and services that depend on state appropriations during economic downturns.

Summary

House Bill 1101 aims to impose restrictions on appropriations by prohibiting funding requests to nongovernmental entities in fiscal years where the official forecast for recurring revenue does not exceed that of the preceding fiscal year. This legislative effort seeks to create a more disciplined approach to state budgeting, ensuring that funding commitments align with the state's financial capability. The bill represents a move towards fiscal conservatism by emphasizing the importance of maintaining revenue forecasts to avoid over-committing state resources.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1101 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to prevent budget overruns and promote fiscal responsibility within the state government. They believe that tightening appropriation controls will lead to more sustainable financial practices. Conversely, critics may view this bill as a handicap for important services and programs provided by nongovernmental entities, especially in times when they may be needed most, thus sparking concerns over the potential social impact of reduced funding.

Contention

A significant point of contention regarding HB 1101 revolves around the implications of prohibiting appropriations during declines in revenue forecasts. Opponents may argue that such a provision could disproportionately affect critical services delivered by nongovernmental organizations, especially those serving vulnerable populations. The debate thus centers on the balance between fiscal prudence and the responsibility to support essential community services, which highlights contrasting priorities in state funding discussions.