Unfunded Mandates

Strengthening the Economy > Government Spending > Unfunded Mandates

We oppose all unfunded mandates by the federal and state governments including unreasonable requirements on voluntary emergency response personnel. State mandates without full funding should be included in the government body's annual increase spending limits.

(plank deleted)

The part about emergency response personnel makes this plank unfocused.

"State mandates without full funding should be included in the government body's annual increase spending limits." Huh?

Also, do we really oppose all unfunded mandates? For example, consider how the Texas Public Information Act mandates openness. This is an unfunded mandate that imposes compliance costs on jurisdictions, but it's an excellent practice.

Fault:

Comments

Mandates without funding

Submitted by Commissioner Skip Huskey (not verified) on Tue, 2009-12-15 19:28.

I have been a commissioner for over 20 years. There has not been one session that the Legislature did not pass costs down to local governments under the guise of balancing the budget. The real problem for Counties and School districts is that the legislature passes costs to the local government, and the result is increased property taxes to pay for that mandate. This problem has existed for many years, and was one of the primary focus issues for Ronald Reagan.

Emergency response personel usually fall under the Fire and Rescue operations. The State passed requirements on VOLUNTEER fire departments that require the local governments (or the volunteer) to pay the costs.

The "annual increase in spending limits" refers to the state law that limits how much Counties are allowed to increase taxes (without an election). The issue here is that we believe there should be a limit, but mandates that cost money should be exempted from the limitation as long as mandates exist.

The final issue: Why is it right for a legislator to increase requirements for a lower government to spend money? I believe that if one is willing to vote to spend our tax dollars, he should be willing to vote to pay for it. When one can vote for spending and simply pass the bill on to a lower government, it makes it easier to vote for the spending; and more often that not requires the local government to increase property taxes.

But where do you cross the

Submitted by Aren Cambre on Wed, 2009-12-16 00:18.

But where do you cross the line between "unfunded mandate" and "required best practice"? All levels of government have some subordination to others...

Post new comment

Random plank

Strengthening the Economy > Government Spending > Budget And Appropriations Process

We demand that Congress institute reforms that eliminate unethical politicization of appropriations. We oppose trading of votes based on pork sharing, and promises of financial and other help during reelection campaigns. We oppose state funding of programs without legislative approval.

Reason:

"unethical politicization of appropriations" is hopelessly vague. Congress is a political body. It's natural for issues to be politicized.

"We oppose trading of votes based on pork sharing, and promises of financial and other help during reelection campaigns." is also unclear.

It is unclear how the state can can fund programs without legislative approval. Budgets come from the legislature. While the governor has an authority called the "budget executive authority," this is statutorily authorized (source) and has limited legislative review. Modern government is complex, and the governor must have some discretion outside the biennial legislature.

Overall this plank appears to have a naive take on the art of politics. It is not pretty, like sausage making.

misinformed, vague

Problems

Show problem parts of the platform:

Platforms promote principles and policies. Planks must not push particular polymorphic political proposals, including bills.about a specific bill (6)

Parts of these were recently implemented.accomplished (11)

Parts of these only promote limited religious viewpoints.advances religious doctrine (8)

Too many positions already overwhelm voters. We cannot add more without a plan to cut ballot complexity.another elected office (6)

The GOP should not be a virulent, anti-homosexual crusade.anti-homosexual crusade (6)

These destroy useful customs or start us down slippery slopes.bad precedent (17)

Cliches belong on the playground, not in serious platforms.cliche (5)

These contradict other planks.contradictory (13)

These simply go too far, overshooting a rational remedy.extreme (25)

These have factual errors.incorrect (11)

These planks advanced contemporary liberal causes or expand government.leftist (22)

These planks require belief in something that is untrue.misinformed (18)

These are not appropriate for a platform document.misuse of platform (6)

These planks have minor punctuation or grammatical errors.needs copyedit (8)

These problems were fixed before the 2008 platform was published.no longer relevant (3)

"Black helicopters" and paranoid conspiracy have no place in our party.paranoid (15)

Parts of these do nothing useful.pointless (61)

These proposals would make our kids stupider.reduces education quality (3)

These planks are internally redundant or repeat other parts of the platform.redundant (41)

These planks should propose a more general solution.too specific (6)

These planks are unclear or unfocused.vague (19)

Puffy prose, hackneyed phrases, and obscure words create pinheaded, unfocused, and inaccessible platforms. Platforms must be simple and direct.wordy (47)