Take a Gamble on Funding Proposals?

From the Lawrence Journal-World:

Senate leaders want debate on school finance

Both the House plan and a rival Senate plan have no provisions for new revenue

By John Hanna – Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, March 28, 2006


“I don’’t see any benefit in waiting,”” said Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, who sets his chamber’’s debate calendar. ““The choices aren’’t going to get any clearer or any easier.”

The choices include whether to expand gambling to pay for the additional spending on schools. Both the House plan and a rival Senate plan have no provisions for raising new revenue, and projections show legislators would have to close a budget shortfall starting next year.

Read more here.

If legislators are going to raise spending, they have several options to accomodate the increases within the budget, including:

– Hope /expect that economic growth will lead to tax revenue growth, and enough of it to fund the increased amounts.

– Raise tax rates, but hope that they aren’t so high as to backfire, either economically or politically.

– Lean on a sucker’s tax, otherwise known as gambling revenue.

– Cut spending elsewhere in the budget, and risk the wrath of advocates of those other budget items.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
%d bloggers like this: