Louisiana House Bill HR27

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/5/11
• Refer: 5/9/11
• Report Pass: 5/11/11
• Passed: 5/23/11

Caption

Provides for certain procedures relative to the passage of an appropriation bill when one-time money is appropriated for recurring expenses

Impact

The introduction of HR27 could significantly alter how budgeting is managed in the state legislature. By requiring a two-thirds majority for appropriations utilizing one-time funds for ongoing costs, the bill seeks to discourage reliance on funds that may not be stable in the long term for recurrent state expenses. This change aims to promote fiscal responsibility among legislators and potentially reduce the incidence of budget shortfalls stemming from unsustainable financial practices.

Summary

House Resolution 27 (HR27) was introduced to establish a new legislative rule regarding appropriation bills that involve the use of one-time money for ordinary recurring expenses. The bill mandates that any motion to finally pass such an appropriation must occur only after a separate motion has been adopted, allowing for the use of one-time funds with a favorable vote of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. This provision is aimed at improving transparency and ensuring a higher standard of legislative approval for financial decisions that could impact ongoing state expenses.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HR27 appears to be somewhat mixed among legislators and stakeholders. Advocates of the bill argue that it reinforces prudent budgeting practices and protects the state against fiscal instability, while critics may view it as an unnecessary hurdle that complicates the appropriations process. This polarized view highlights the ongoing debate about fiscal management and the balance of power within legislative procedures in the state.

Contention

Notable points of contention related to HR27 include concerns over the practicality of requiring a two-thirds vote for motions involving one-time funding. Some legislators argue that this requirement could slow down the budget process, making it more difficult to respond swiftly to fiscal emergencies or adjust budgets as needed. Furthermore, there are discussions about whether this procedural change will ultimately enhance the legislative oversight of state finances or merely add bureaucratic complexity to the appropriations process.