Unfortunately, there is not much to report on the budget front.  We did pass a bill which theoretically puts a freeze on state spending, along with a concurrent bill in the Senate, which now goes to the Governor.  She will most likely veto the measure because she wants no part of cuts in spending.  It is so frustrating to know that the legislature has a plan of action that will resolve our current crisis, but because it has come down to a test of wills between the executive and legislative branches nothing will be done.

Again unfortunately, the legislature gave the Governor the final say in last year's budget, knowing full well that the revenue projections that she assumed were unrealistic to say the least.  Now she knows she has the upper hand in any negotiations and will not give in on her priority issue:  resuming bonding for school construction and to cover our current debts in order to preserve spending on her pet projects, and actually increasing spending on some of those.

I knew this was going to be a difficult year, but I have to admit that I did not fully realize the personal frustration that would come from being just one of 90 legislators who could only react to what is being proposed, but not have any real say in the ultimate outcome.

As you may recall, I have stated that I do not support transfers to the General Fund of monies that reside in dedicated funds, mostly comprised of fees levied on particular taxpayers who expect that these fees will be used for the purposes specified.  I have also stated that in these extraordinary times, with a Governor who refuses to cut spending and with a "rainy day" fund that will not cover the current gap between revenues and expenditures, it may become necessary to tap these funds for a percentage of their balances. 

I have been lobbied by almost all of the beneficiaries of these funds, all claiming that their fund alone is the one that is the most important and from which nothing should be swept.  If we are going to bring any sense of fairness to an unfair practice, then no fund should be immune.  But because I represent cities along the Colorado River, who rely on State Lake Improvement Funds for many projects of economic importance, I have agreed that I will attempt to exempt SLIF from being affected.  And I will continue in that effort. 

But it is impossible to predict how those efforts will be received, not only by leadership, but by others who feel that funds of particular importance to their districts should also be exempt.  I can only try -- I cannot guarantee the result that many in District 3 are expecting.

Last week I promised a discussion about community colleges and four year degrees, but I am too despondent over the budget situation to begin to address that issue.  If there's nothing significant to report next week, I'll try to get back to that topic.

Nancy