Welcome to The Senate Site

By Lyle Hillyard
Senator, District 25 (representing Cache Valley, rated one of the safest places in the U.S.)

There is a great deal of anticipation about the release of the Governor’s budget recommendations for FY 09 and FY10 this week. When I was first elected, Gov. Matheson would release his budget the second day of the session and that was the first time we heard about his revenue projections. That's not how we do it anymore. Now, we have consensus revenue projections so the Governor and the Legislature begin the session from the same page.

This year, I was told by the Governor’s staff that they wanted to release the projections the first week of December, two weeks earlier than past years. This will give everyone time to begin the difficult process of lowering government spending to the new reduced revenues.

While we worked together very closely in arriving at an agreement for the Special Session, it became obvious that if the revenues continued to slide that a real disagreement could result. How much of the on-going general fund revenue, now being put into roads, would be pulled out to prevent further cuts in other governmental programs?

Let me point out several things to which you should pay attention when the Governor unveils his proposed budget.

First, what revenue shortfalls will the Governor be using? The same figures will be used by the legislature. Remember that $50.0 M represents 1% of the state portion of the state budget, so if we are $200.0 M down, that is 4% reductions.

Are those shortfalls in income tax (education fund) or sales tax (general fund)?

What is in one-time or in the current FY 09 budget that ends June 09 (we will be half way there so shortfalls can only be made up over 6 months) and what is on-going FY 2010 (begins July 09)?

What happened to the gasoline tax revenue?

Will shortfalls there make it even more difficult to take away the on-going revenue in the transportation fund?

Second, how does the Governor propose to fill in the short-fall? There are several ways: cut programs, raise taxes, or switch revenue. There will probably be some combination but raising taxes would be the most difficult. The Executive Appropriations Committee will meet on December 16th and adopt the same revenue figures and, hopefully, have some suggested budget moves.

The Legislative rules require us to pass a base budget the first 10 days of the session, so we will be looking at a base budget as a guideline for the committees to address at the beginning of the session. We also have to make room for any adjustments in mid February, when later estimates are made. This is usually based on the year-end sales and income tax returns that have been filed. The State Tax Commission has stated that one of the reasons that our income collections have been down so far this year is an error in the withholding, so that less is withheld than should be. That will mean more will have to pay taxes come April 15th than get a refund.

Another difference between the Governor and the Legislature may be the perception that we have bottomed out and the economy is coming back. If we are still not low enough, I am concerned that the revenue figures in February will be lower and we will be forced to go back and make more adjustments. I would rather be too low now and be able to say that things are not as bad as feared and put some money back. I have found it much easier to add money than take it away near the end of the session when new revenue figures come out.

I am telling most groups who are coming to see me that I don’t need to hear of a new program to fund. What I need to hear is how they can cut theirs back so that we can use the money where we may feel it is more needed.

I am glad to be working with Rep. Bigelow again. I have found him easy to work with and one dedicated to spending money wisely and for what Government must be doing. This will be a session where experience will come in very handy.

5 Comments:

 Tom said...

Given the looming cuts, it's a bit surprising to me that even though the State Board of Education, the Utah School Boards Association, the Utah Association of School Business Officers and the Utah Superintendents Association (and who knows how many others) have advocate the cutting of the $2.5 million ongoing and $1 million one-time funding for UPSTART (computers for pre-schoolers) passed in the recent omnibus bill, that there are senators who choose to ignore the proposed budget reduction and advocate for its continuance at the cost of other programs.

12/04/2008 8:13 AM  

 Potsie said...

Here we go again, representatives of the Utah State Board of Education are bullying and trying to micromanage the legislature.

12/04/2008 3:15 PM  

 Tom said...

Thanks for providing a good laugh, Potsie. I truly hope you're being sarcastic.

If it would make you feel better, I'll post the same comment again in January when I'm no longer on the Board, and have no stake in the outcome beyond my responsibilities as a voter and taxpayer.

Put a different way, I'm asking a question: Why are the opinions of both subject matter experts and front-line implementors routinely ignored?

If one wants to sample what bullying behavior looks like, complete with superlative and name-calling, slide over to the next post on this site.

There are real issues in education that we need to come together to address. Publicly alienating stakeholders isn't a good first step. Rather than airing dirty laundry via public media, my limited experience suggests discussing critical issues with stakeholders is more likely to produce lasting change. This is supported by a multitude of peer-reviewed research and years of business practice.

12/04/2008 3:33 PM  

 Jon said...

Tom, I don't think Potsie was being sarcastic. My mother is a teacher and the stories she tells about education's administration is upsetting. In the computer industry, we have a term for adding more functionality to existing program code by simply adding more code, it is called "code bloat". Often times, one can easily rewrite the code using half as much resources and still get more done.

In reference to your "next post" "name-calling", I disagree. I have personally talked with Senator Stephenson and found him to be very intelligent. The comments from that post is in line with what I have observed over time in Utah's education.

I want to respond to your question "Why are the opinions of both subject matter experts and front-line implementors routinely ignored" with another question... Why are Freddie and Fanny allowed to continue working their magic over the lending industry when they made a mess of it in the first place? The answer is simple, they have deep pockets to buy into Congress and push their weight around. In this case, I too would ignore their subject matter experts.

Whether or not you agree with me is irrelevant. I understand how you would question why others should listen to their experts, yet I also understand why others would ignore them.

12/07/2008 7:57 AM  

 Tom said...

Jon, it was a pleasure reading something so well-articulated and well-reasoned. As a computer programmer I understand such refactoring, and have done it myself on several occasions. I too have spoken with the Senator (though he has never raised this issue), and I too find him both intelligent and dedicated. I agree that there are parts of how education is administered that can be frustrating at times--but I find that a one thing often holds true: the situation is incredibly more complex than I might have originally thought. It is also a frequent occurrence that some of the savings I'd like to see turn out to be required (and paid for) by federal programs.

You do something in your query that I think is extremely important--you recognize that those who hold a different opinion may have significant expertise in the matter, even though your conclusion is different. It shows a respect for others while disagreeing with their beliefs. It demonstrates an ability to engage in debate without demeaning another. I would that all could show such a nobility of temperament.

My frustration with the senator's approach is not with his message--something on which reasonable people can reach reasonable solutions--but that is presented by demeaning and minimizing others. We can advocate for different positions without denigrating another's values. "Stupid," "subversive," "bloated," "don't give a damn about the law...," are not phrases that inspire broad coalitions. Divisive politics have led, I believe, to citizen apathy, and, I suspect, is the primary reason behind the lack of faith in both a Republican President and a Democratic Congress by the general citizenry.

We can, and must, be better than that.

12/07/2008 6:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Twitter Updates

Follow us on the Senate Twitter Site