Louisiana House Bill HR184

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/17/10
• Passed: 6/18/10

Caption

Urges and requests the Legislative Fiscal Office to report on new programs added to the general operating budget between FY 1996-1997 and FY 2009-2010

Impact

The resolution highlights significant changes to budgetary allocations and the introduction of new programs over a 14-year span. This scrutiny of financial practices is vital as the state faces budget deficits in upcoming fiscal years. The objective is to provide a clearer understanding of how money has been appropriated and whether new programs have justified their costs. The findings from this report could inform future legislative actions and budgetary decisions, potentially leading to reforms aimed at optimizing state spending.

Summary

House Resolution 184 urges the Legislative Fiscal Office to prepare a comprehensive report detailing new programs that state agencies have added to their general operating budgets between Fiscal Years 1996-1997 and 2009-2010. This resolution reflects a larger concern regarding the growth of state expenditures and the need for transparency in fiscal responsibilities. By encouraging such a report, the resolution aims to ensure that lawmakers are informed about changes in agency programs that could impact the state budget in the future.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around HR184 appears to be one of caution and fiscal responsibility. There is an acknowledgment among legislators that the state’s financial landscape has changed significantly over the years, thus necessitating a detailed overview of fiscal policies and expenditures. While the resolution is largely non-controversial, it represents a proactive approach towards ensuring accountability in state spending, which resonates well with both fiscal conservatives and groups advocating for responsible governance.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding HR184 might arise if the report uncovers programs that are deemed ineffective or redundant. Additionally, discussions may center around which specific programs should be highlighted and whether the resources allocated to them have led to beneficial outcomes for the state. However, given that this is an urging resolution rather than a prescriptive mandate, the potential for heated debate appears limited at this time.