Louisiana Senate Bill SB229

Louisiana 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/31/17
• Refer: 3/31/17
• Refer: 4/10/17

Caption

Limits appropriations to 98% of the official forecast. (7/1/18)

Impact

The implementation of SB 229 is expected to significantly impact state budgeting practices and financial management. By limiting appropriations to 98% of the forecast, the bill seeks to create a more sustainable budgetary environment, reducing the risks associated with overestimating revenue and subsequently facing shortfalls. This could lead to a more disciplined approach to state spending and necessitate careful forecasting and expenditure planning by the legislature. Moreover, in years when revenue projections shrink by at least one percent, the appropriations can still maintain a level of flexibility.

Summary

Senate Bill 229 aims to impose a fiscal constraint on state appropriations by capping them at 98% of the official revenue forecast. This legislation is intended to provide a safeguard against budget deficits by ensuring that the legislature can only allocate funds based on a predetermined percentage of expected revenues. The bill specifies that appropriations from both the state general fund and dedicated funds will adhere to this limitation from the fiscal year 2018-2019 onward, effectively placing fiscal responsibility at the forefront of state budgeting processes.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB 229 tends to favor fiscal prudence, reflecting a broader concern among lawmakers and constituents about state financial stability. Proponents argue that such a measure is essential for responsible governance and ensuring that future budgets are balanced and reflective of realistic revenue projections. However, concerns have been raised about the potential limitations this may impose on funding for essential services if revenue forecasts are overly conservative. Critics may worry that the cap could hinder the state's ability to respond to unexpected financial needs or emergencies.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the effects of this limitation on the ability of the state legislature to respond to economic fluctuations and enjoy flexibility in funding critical programs. Some legislators worry that a strict 98% cap will undermine the agility needed for timely decision-making and could lead to understaffed departments and underfunded essential services if economic conditions worsen. The debate underscores the delicate balance between fiscal responsibility and the need for sufficient funding to meet the state's obligations and services.