* From a press release…
Today House Republicans introduced House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 32 to put real “teeth” into the state’s balanced budget requirement. It demands that within 30 days of the enactment of a budget, the Auditor General’s Office must certify that the budget will be balanced with expenses not exceeding expected revenue. If the Auditor General declares that the budget is not balanced then the Comptroller will:
o Stop payment for the salary of General Assembly members and Constitutional Officers; and
o Stop all payments, besides those affecting public safety of the State, required by law, or required by the federal government
“For several years now, lawmakers have passed budgets that were absolutely unbalanced, leaving billions in unpaid bills,” said Representative Bill Mitchell (R-Forsyth). “It’s time to hold state government accountable to the taxpayers. Our balanced budget amendment will force lawmakers and the Governor to put their money where their mouths are. Pass a truly balanced budget or don’t get paid. This is a common-sense fiscal reform that is sorely needed in Springfield.” […]
HJRCA 32 also requires that within 10 days of the Auditor General declaring the budget is not balanced, the General Assembly must convene to address the unbalanced budget. Upon passage of a new budget, the Auditor General must certify if it is balanced, and only then will the Comptroller be allowed to continue payments.
Yes, it’s gimmicky, but I don’t think it’s a bad idea, although I’d be more comfortable with it if chief sponsor Rep. Mitchell had also voted for pension reform yesterday.
* And it would also be helpful if the Republicans could say what sort of programs would actually be cut because doing so would show that they had thought this through…
Mitchell said he believed schools would still be paid but was not clear on whether public union workers with “non-essential” duties would receive paychecks.
Your thoughts?
…Adding… From a longtime commenter…
come on Rich, it’s among the dumbest things I have ever heard. Who in God’s name would provide service to the state if that passed? I assume bond payments are protected but this clause would still have to be put in the bond docs and that would be adverse on our rates. Just another ill-conceived gimmick.
OK, I stand corrected.
