JACKSON — Gov. Haley Barbour’s Fiscal Year 2011 executive budget recommendation contains something for almost every lobbyist, special interest group, educational institution, state agency head and state employee to dislike.
The Barbour budget plan cuts public education at virtually every level, cuts Medicaid, cuts the state’s mental health programs, consolidates a third of the state’s school districts, merges three of the state’s eight institutions of higher learning, consolidates some state agencies and defunds a handful of boards and commissions.
Barbour’s budget even takes a swipe at junior college athletic programs — all $20 million worth of them in the state.
Beyond merely defending their own turf, the criticism aimed at Barbour in the wake of his explosive proposals have ranged from “cut somebody else, not me” to questioning why Barbour didn’t see the need to help state government save all this money back when he was facing the voters in 2003 and again in 2007.
Think how much money the state could have saved had Barbour had this fiscal revelation back before it was politically easy for a term-limited governor to put this proposal forward, they say. Barbour can expect that charge to be among the nicest criticisms over the next several months as his budget plan becomes the framework for the state’s 2010 and 2011 regular legislative sessions.
What Barbour’s budget does most is put the ball squarely in the court of House Speaker Billy McCoy and Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant. State agencies, educational institutions, state employees and others with political skin in the game will be looking to the Legislature for an alternative plan that spares them from the cuts Barbour has proposed.
The math gets pretty simple. The state can either cut spending along the lines Barbour has proposed, raises taxes, raid and deplete the state’s special funds or some combination of all three approaches.
What the state’s budget math doesn’t allow is ignoring Barbour’s budget plan and continuing to operate state government in its present form with its present revenue stream.
If lawmakers are looking for political cover to make difficult budget cuts, Barbour has provided them that cover in his recommendation. But the fact is that in 2011, Barbour will not be facing the state’s voters while the Legislature will — as will every state official other than Barbour.
That means that while Barbour will ride off into the political sunset — from state government, at least, the Legislature must live with the political fallout from the state budgets that are made for FY 2011 and FY 2012.
So must Bryant while at the same time making a gubernatorial bid. That fact brings into question whether Barbour can exact the same level of partisan discipline in the state Senate that’s he’s enjoyed since taking office in 2004 or whether Bryant will assert himself and take a more traditional leadership role in the Senate than he’s taken to date.
In the final analysis, the Legislature will have to make the state’s budget math work either by relying on Barbour’s budget plan or constructing one of their own that accomplishes essentially the same thing. At the end of the day, the biggest looming fight will be over how much of the state’s “rainy day fund” is utilized in FY 2011.
