Friday, April 4, 2008
The debate that led up to Senate approval of the $17.6 billion state budget Thursday revolved around a philosophical split between Republicans and Democrats on government spending.
A philosophical split? Or petty Dick Wadhams politics? I'm sitting in the Appropriations Committee right now where Republicans have sponsored bills spending more than $3 million. Just one morning. The fact is they've been voting to spend money all year, just as always. I've supported some of the bills and opposed others, just as always.
When the Republicans were in charge, they spent up to the 6% limit. There's no philosophical split, just politics.
Republicans called it "reckless" excess to add 1,334 state workers while the economy is tanking.
They were still fuming at the governor's office and majority Democrats for killing a "meager" $30 million "rainy day" fund proposal.
Of course they knew we were already working, with them, to build a rainy day fund with far more money in it -- more than $150 million.
"It's like adding 1,300 new state workers to the deck of the Titanic and we're heading for an iceberg and we're telling them to hold on as we turn up the steam," said Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs.
"But maybe we can offer them slushies after we hit," he added.
Democrats called it a frugal, smart budget that "invested" in vital programs - top-notch universities to crank out world- class workers and solar-power subsidies to spur the "new energy economy." Such spending, they said, will help Colorado power through choppy economic waters.
Democrats said the state still has a $283 million emergency reserve - four percent of the general fund, which both parties have tried to increase for years.
Republicans questioned why Democrats could not simply "reduce" the growth of spending below the maximum 6 percent limit.
We could have killed all if the bills they're sponsoring that spend money, but they would have complained about that too.
GOP lawmakers said Dems want to take the easy way out - tapping billions from the anticipated windfall from the state's oil-and-gas boom.
The Republicans have been working with us on that without complaining. And they've been insisting that some of the windfall get spent in their districts rather than go into the rainy day fund. Even if the Republicans didn't bring that up, the reporter could have mentioned it.
Senators voted 21-14, with only one Republican joining majority Democrats, to pass the spending plan.
When Democrats were in the minority, we voted for the budget even when he hated some of the things in it. Those budgets have a lot of cuts to important services because the Republicans had recklessly cut taxes. We could have all voted "no" and let the Republicans take all of the criticism for those cuts, but we chose to work with them and share the responsibility.
A conference committee will iron out differences between House and Senate versions before the bill goes to the governor.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment