05/14/2003 09:25 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 14, 2003
9:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Holm
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to an appropriation limit and a spending limit.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 93(JUD) am
"An Act relating to limitations on actions to quiet title to,
eject a person from, or recover real property or the possession
of it; relating to adverse possession; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to disposition of a traffic offense involving
the death of a person; providing for the revocation of driving
privileges by a court for a driver convicted of a violation of
traffic laws in connection with a fatal motor vehicle or
commercial motor vehicle accident; amending Rules 43 and 43.1,
Alaska Rules of Administration; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 160(HES)
"An Act relating to civil liability for use or attempted use of
an automated external defibrillator; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 64(JUD)
"An Act relating to a requirement that certain consumer
reporting agencies provide individuals with certain information
without charge."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 41(FIN)
"An Act relating to medical care and crimes relating to medical
care, including medical care and crimes relating to the medical
assistance program, catastrophic illness assistance, and medical
assistance for chronic and acute medical conditions."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act declaring legislative intent to reject the continuity of
enterprise exception to the doctrine of successor liability
adopted in Savage Arms, Inc. v. Western Auto Supply, 18 P.3d 49
(Alaska 2001), as it relates to products liability; providing
that a successor corporation or other business entity that
acquires assets of a predecessor corporation or other business
entity is subject to liability for harm to persons or property
caused by a defective product sold or otherwise distributed
commercially by the predecessor only if the acquisition is
accompanied by an agreement for the successor to assume the
liability, results from a fraudulent conveyance to escape
liability for the debts or liabilities of the predecessor,
constitutes a consolidation or merger with the predecessor, or
results in the successor's becoming a continuation of the
predecessor; defining 'business entity' that acquires assets to
include a sole proprietorship; and applying this Act to the
sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of assets by a
corporation, a limited liability company, a partnership, a
limited liability partnership, a limited partnership, a sole
proprietorship, or other business entity that occurs on or after
the effective date of this Act."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 9
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STOLTZE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/31/03 0102 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/03 0102 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
03/28/03 0687 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
04/04/03 0797 (H) W&M REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE STA
04/09/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/09/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/17/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/17/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/24/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/24/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/29/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/30/03 (H) W&M AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/30/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
05/02/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/02/03 (H) Moved CSHJR 9(W&M) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(W&M)
05/02/03 1271 (H) W&M RPT CS(W&M) NT 3DP 2NR
2AM
05/02/03 1271 (H) DP: HEINZE, WHITAKER, HAWKER;
05/02/03 1271 (H) NR: MOSES, GRUENBERG; AM:
KOHRING,
05/02/03 1271 (H) WILSON
05/02/03 1271 (H) FN1: (GOV)
05/06/03 (H) JUD AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/06/03 (H) <Pending Referral>
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/07/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/07/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
05/07/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/07/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
05/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/08/03 (H) Moved CSHJR 9(STA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(STA)
05/08/03 1465 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 3NR
05/08/03 1465 (H) DP: SEATON, LYNN, DAHLSTROM;
05/08/03 1465 (H) NR: GRUENBERG, HOLM,
WEYHRAUCH
05/08/03 1466 (H) FN1: (GOV)
05/08/03 1466 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
05/08/03 (H) JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/08/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
05/09/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/09/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
05/12/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/12/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
Wed. 5/14/03>
05/14/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 9.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-62, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:25 p.m. Representatives
McGuire, Ogg, Samuels, and Gruenberg were present at the call to
order. Representative Gara arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HJR 9 - CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT
Number 0024
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to an appropriation
limit and a spending limit. She noted that the sponsor's staff
had given the committee an overview of the resolution at its
prior hearing.
Number 0057
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
noted that some members in the House Judiciary Standing
Committee have heard HJR 9 in its prior committees of referral.
He said his philosophy has been fairly succinct, adding:
Many of us see some things coming down the line that
heretofore haven't been ... on the horizon: tax
measures, uses of previously sacrosanct fund sources.
With those potential inevitabilities, I wanted to have
a sustainable budget level that the public had
confidence in and then, when we're putting new money
on the table, that ... we're maintaining a sustainable
spending level. It's one legislator's philosophy
reflecting the values of my district, and I realize
... I have 39 colleagues that have similar and
disparate views. There's certainly ... some devil in
the details on this. It's not a perfect measure; as
you've seen, it's been amended through the process.
Some amendment's I've agreed with, some not. It's now
before you for consideration.
Number 0206
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt CSHJR 9(STA) as the work
draft. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG indicated that he liked [CSHJR 9(W&M)] more,
because it had another step in it involving another 2 percent.
He said that although he would go along with passing out of
committee the most recent version - CSHJR 9(STA) - he doesn't
think it puts Alaska in a good position or gives the legislature
the flexibility it may need in the future. He elaborated:
I think that the percentages here are just a little
too tight. I would have been much happier with adding
another section in here that would have allowed
another increase of 2 percent. I think Alaska's
history has shown that we tend to enter periods of
high, increased economic activity in a very short
period of time that we certainly can't foresee today.
And this doesn't allow for that to happen; it may
constrict it.
We may also end up in a situation where we have a
high-inflationary period that I hope we never do get
to, but if we did get into something like that, I
don't think that this 2 percent/2 percent would
accommodate that. Also, I was trying to, last time we
were discussing this, [point out that] you can get
into a system here, the way that the two-year thing is
set up, that if these are your first two years that
you use and you're in a two-year delay, ... you can
end up with that as your base and never really
accommodate a flat line here, because those will just
follow along because you're using opposite two years.
And I don't think that this addresses that. And also
what would happen is, if you had a shortfall in some
future time, you've brought your budget down one year
because of an anomaly and then you went back up the
next year, you could exacerbate that - a shifting back
and forth between the two years because of the two-
year lag here. I just wanted to have that on the
record; I don't know how to rectify that here, and
those are my comments.
Number 0435
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said that those are all good points. He
mentioned that he'd started out with an even more conservative
spending limit, but the House Special Committee on Ways and
Means "tripled what I wanted to accomplish, and I got them to
back down to doubling it." "So, we all try to represent our
philosophies, our goals and legitimate aspirations, and I
acknowledge yours," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG began discussion of [Amendment 1]. He
distributed page 2 of a proposed committee substitute (CS) for
HJR 9, Version 23-LS0435\H, Cook, 4/29/03, which was reported
from the House Special Committee on Ways and Means, as amended.
He focused members' attention on language that said:
(b) An appropriation that exceeds the limit under (a)
of this section may be made for any public purpose
upon affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the
members of each house of the legislature. The total
amount of appropriations under this subsection made
for a fiscal year may not exceed two percent of the
amount appropriated for the fiscal year two years
preceding the fiscal year for which the appropriations
are made.
[The foregoing was not included in CSHJR 9(W&M) as reported from
the House Special Committee on Ways and Means.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thought that that language was
good because it provided an intermediate step. He said that he
would be willing to reinsert that language into HJR 9.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE opined that including that language would
"increase the ability to spend more money and liberalize the
spending limit." He said that the issue of whether to add that
language is a policy and judgment call. He suggested that were
they to do so, perhaps the legislation should be referred to as
an increased spending plan, rather than a spending limit. He
offered his belief that the legislature would not have any
problem spending 6-8 percent more each year, although the
funding for doing so might not be available. He said he is not
sure that the Alaska public will accept the measures that would
be required to fuel "that kind of legislative appetite."
Number 0637
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked how many other states have spending
caps.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he did not know, and indicated that
he would research that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether any other state has a spending
cap.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he believes that there are other
states which do have some sort of spending cap, but added that
he did not know how many other states have a funding mechanism
similar to Alaska's for the operation of state government.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Representative Stoltze whether he
would be amenable to a tax cap instead of a spending cap.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said, "That makes the presumption ...
that we're going to have taxes." He noted that a tax cap has
been offered in the past, and said that he would favor one, but
only in addition [to a spending cap]. "I don't have the same
predilection for taxes as other folks have, ... so it's harder
for me to take that leap," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he has a concern, and elaborated:
I personally believe that after lagging behind
inflation on school funding for more than a decade
now, that we've stressed our schools ... beyond their
limits and their ability to provide a ... good enough
education to our children. And I guess ... if I said,
"Well, are we ever going to be able to fund our
schools properly if we ... cap spending at essentially
last year's level," I guess the response would be,
"Well, we can always take money away from somewhere
else and put it in the schools." But we weren't able
to do it this year. So, ... do you share my view that
we've been unfairly lagging in the area of school
funding? Or do you think that we're at an adequate
level of school funding?
Number 0820
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied:
I share a concern for adequate school funding. But I
also share a concern about where money is going to
come from [and] the public's willingness to pay for
things. ... I serve in a body with 59 other people
from all over the state, ... we all have different
priorities, and it's really hard to get to that
spending prioritization. I think one thing just about
all of us agree on is education funding; I think that
would be a priority for funding. But we can't always
agree on what else ought to be cut ..., and I think
this is a mechanism that'll force us to make those
cuts.
It's not something I'm really comfortable [with; it's]
not my first choice. I wish we had internal
discipline, but we've seen ... how hard it is with
disparate priorities and different goals .... Just
about every [disparity] makes it hard to do what we
want to do, or at least [what] the majority of us want
to do. ... But I think one thing we have seen, even in
... the most austere times when oil was down to nine
bucks a barrel, education was fully funded. So I
would use that as a benchmark of what our ability to
prioritize education [is]; it was even actually
increased, I believe. On that issue I think, yeah,
... we would have the ability to at least make a real
good effort to meet education needs even under the
most restrictive spending limit.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he is just wondering whether a spending
cap of the kind proposed in HJR 9 really makes sense. He again
asked Representative Stoltze whether he believes that state
funding for education is at an adequate level or is underfunded.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said that he is not sure that they could
ever adequately address all the educational needs of the state.
He offered that one solution would for certain areas of the
state to start contributing at the local level to education
funding. He indicated that [a spending cap] is going to cause
"local people" to reevaluate how much they are willing to
contribute, adding, "it may force us to make some rational
decisions, which we haven't been able to make."
Number 1027
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, after noting that Anchorage has both a
tax cap and spending cap, said that he did not think a tax cap
would work because the state's finances are still so dependent
on oil revenues. Even with an income tax or a sales tax, the
state is still going to be dependent on royalties from the oil
industry, which in turn are dependent on the price of oil. "If
we want to have a mechanism that contains the growth of
government, I don't think that ... [a] tax cap will work just
because of the way we operate," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked: If a tax cap won't work because
there is such a variable rate of oil revenue, how would those
same circumstances allow a spending cap to work? Won't there be
the same problem if oil revenues drop terribly?
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE offered that if oil revenues drop, there
won't be any problem meeting the spending cap.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed, adding that sooner or later, the
problem will be fixed because the constitutional budget reserve
will run out of money. But no matter how the problem is fixed,
Alaska's income stream will have more fluctuations than "a
normal state."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in an attempt to clarify his question,
said:
My belief is that we underfund education. Not
terribly, but we've fallen behind. And so my big
concern about a spending cap is that if [at] today's
level of spending we're underfunding education, and if
as a body we can't figure out a way to shuffle money
around to get more money within this budget for
education and away from other things, I'm wondering,
if we institutionalize today's spending level, how
we'll ever get to a point of fair education funding.
And so my question to you was, do you share my concern
that we're underfunding education. If you don't, then
that's a great reason to support the spending limit.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he'd already answered that question.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that Representative Stoltze had not
yet answered that question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention back to the language
on page 2 of Version H [text provided previously]. He offered
his belief that "a reasonable working group" could achieve the
two-thirds vote provided for in Version H. This [language]
would provide a little cushion, an intermediate step before
having to go to a three-fourths vote.
Number 1278
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to
add [after line 10 on page 2 of HJR 9(STA)] the language in
subsection (b) from Version H [text provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE sought clarification of whether Amendment
1 would replace the current subsection (b).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said no, indicating that it would be in
addition to the language currently in HJR 9(STA).
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE remarked that adopting Amendment 1 would
provide for a total of 6 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that a three-fourths vote is very
difficult to achieve, and that he wishes to make it easier in
case there is a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG noted that Amendment 1 would provide for a
new subsection (b) and, therefore, the remainder of the bill
would have to be "renumbered."
Number 1306
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed with that point and again made
the motion to adopt Amendment 1.
Number 1311
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said he thought that extra cushion would be
needed to take care of some future [fiscal] anomaly. He went on
to say:
I feel really concerned about limiting the ability of
our representative form of government to respond and
react to a fiscal reality. And what we're doing here
is very clear; this restricts our ability to respond.
There are certain things that you can respond to in
here, but you're not able to respond to a wonderful
increase in growth in our economy. So something like
the Prudhoe Bay, something like that that might come
that's unforeseen, this does not allow you to respond
to that. It also doesn't allow you to respond to a
rapid increase of inflation.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered his belief that there are
exceptions for the disasters and for the "feds coming in with
more." "If we're going to try to limit spending, we should try
to limit spending," he added. He mentioned that with another
step in there, he is concerned that appropriations would just
keep rising.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there are any exceptions to
Anchorage's [limits].
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he did not know the specifics of
[those limits].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied:
It's different. ... This is as much as I know ...; I
only understand the tax cap part of it. But the tax
cap part of it, see, as the population grows and the
economy grows, even if the tax rate stays the same,
the amount of revenue that comes in accounts for the
bigger population [and] the bigger amount of business.
And that's the big difference between the Anchorage
tax cap and this. No matter how big the population
grows, the way this spending cap is written, the
amount of spending stays the same. And so if the
population goes up, the amount of money spent on each
person goes down. In Anchorage that's accounted for
because the way the tax cap is written: assuming that
the economy grows as the population grows, the tax
base gets bigger even without the rate going higher.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that that is an interesting point. She
asked Representative Stoltze to comment on what he thinks might
happen if a gas line goes in, or the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) gets developed, or some other "fundamental
changes" in the economy occur that would cause the population to
expand.
Number 1484
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he thinks that population
adjustments make more sense than percentage increases. He went
on to say, "I don't support inflation ...; that's led to
spiraling budget increases on our entitlement programs."
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative Stoltze why he has not
included in HJR 9 a provision that addresses population
increases.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that he was trying to "keep this
thing as tight" as he could. He mentioned that should Amendment
1 pass, it would "triple" his original proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that he has two concerns:
the effect of inflation, and the effect of economic disasters.
He suggested that "disaster" as used on page 1, [paragraph] (3),
ought to include economic disasters as well as natural
disasters. Doing so, he opined, would eliminate his concern
regarding that issue. However, the effects of inflation still
ought to be addressed somehow, he remarked, adding that
Amendment 1 would help in that regard.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said that over the years, he has seen
[the definition of] "economic disasters" evolve and "liberalize"
the spending of funds. He used Western Alaska as an example of
an area where funds are spent on annual economic disasters.
CHAIR McGUIRE said she did not disagree with the purpose of the
bill and understood its goal, adding that "we spend more money
than we should," though perhaps not in the area of education.
She observed that there is a tendency for legislators to seek
funding for capital projects and other projects that will
benefit their districts. She posited that the issues being
raised by members are an attempt to determine, as the body
tasked with financing the operations of the state, how to do it
in a responsible manner given the difficulty of predicting where
Alaska will be 20 years from now with respect to its population
and economy. She suggested to Representative Stoltze that he
give these issues of how to deal with unforeseen circumstances
his serious consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE mentioned that in one version, HJR 9 had
"an escape valve" that would have required voter reapproval
every six years.
Number 1737
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then began discussion of [what became
known as Amendment 2]. He turned attention to CSHJR 9(W&M) and
noted that its Section 2 was removed in the House State Affairs
Standing Committee; thus CSHJR 9(STA) no longer includes the
language that reads:
* Sec. 2. Article XV, Constitution of the State of
Alaska, is amended by adding a new section to read:
Section 30. Application; Repeal of
Appropriation Limit. (a) The 2004 amendment
relating to an appropriation limit (art. IX, sec.
16) first applies to appropriations made for
fiscal year 2006 and applies each fiscal year
thereafter until fiscal year 2013.
(b) Section 16 of Article IX is repealed
July 1, 2012.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that having such language in HJR
9 would not be a bad idea.
Number 1770
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that his suggestion to insert the
foregoing language be considered Amendment 2.
CHAIR McGUIRE agreed.
Number 1781
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG began discussion of [what became known
as Amendment 3]. He then turned attention to CSHJR 9(STA), page
2, lines 17-20, which reads:
(c) If appropriations for a fiscal year exceed
the amount that may be appropriated under (a) and (b)
of this section, the governor shall reduce
expenditures by line item veto to avoid spending more
than the amount that may be appropriated under (a) and
(b) of this section.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he felt that this language is
unnecessary because the governor already has the authority to do
what is proposed in this subsection.
Number 1823
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that the deletion of this
subsection (c) from page 2, lines 17-20, be considered Amendment
3.
CHAIR McGUIRE invited Representative Stoltze to comment on the
proposed amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, referring to the language that would be
deleted by Amendment 3, surmised that that language was included
as legislative intent language for the governor, that he/she
shall reduce expenditures by line item veto if the legislature
does not abide by the appropriation limit.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that there had been some
discussion in a prior committee regarding whether the
legislature would retain the authority to override line item
vetoes. He said that legally, the language does not cause him
concern; rather, he is merely suggesting that it is unnecessary
language.
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that it is not a bad idea to keep
subsection (c) in order to clarify "how it would actually work."
She remarked that the legislature's propensity to overspend is
one of the reasons for having a spending limit. In addition, a
spending limit in the form of a constitutional amendment would
say to the public that the legislature is going to be asking it
to start paying for the services it receives, whether it's
through the use of the [permanent fund] or a broad-based tax,
but that in doing so, the legislature is offering some comfort
[that it will limit spending]. She said that she supports the
inclusion of a provision that notifies voters that they will be
asked to revisit this issue every six years; in this way, if a
spending limit does not prove feasible, the voters will have an
opportunity to reject it.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE observed that the state clearly has a
fiscal gap, and suggested that whether it is deserved or not,
the legislature has a little bit of a credibility gap with the
public on the issue of spending. He opined that HJR 9 will help
bridge that credibility gap, and indicated that there is no
point in trying to get the public to accept some of the things
that might have to be done to close the fiscal gap until after
that credibility gap is bridged. He suggested that HJR 9 will
provide everyone with a level of comfort, whether they are in
favor of revenue measures or in favor of cost-cutting measures.
Number 2052
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, in response to a question, indicated
that one of the versions of HJR 9 had a voting mechanism in it
that was similar to what happens with regard to the question of
whether to have a constitutional convention.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether adjustments for population
growth would be done after a census, and whether Representative
Stoltze has researched this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE indicated that adjustments for population
growth could probably be implemented and would be preferable to
percentage increases because [the rate of population growth]
would be a more accurate indicator of the state's need to
increase spending.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said he keeps wrestling with the issues of
inflation and economic growth, and indicated that he is trying
to figure out where a provision to account for population or
economic growth would fit in HJR 9. With regard to the
aforementioned issue of an additional 2 percent, he said, "I
think you need that safety valve."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that in the resolution's hearings
in prior committees, the issue of accounting for population
growth had not been discussed. He suggested that there are
probably a lot of aspects of HJR 9 that have not yet been
considered.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative Stoltze to explore the
concept of a provision that would account for population growth.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:08 p.m. to 10:10 p.m.
Number 2252
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that HJR 9 would be held over, and
indicated that the committee might have hearings on it during
the interim.
[The motion on Amendment 1 to CSHJR 9(STA) was left pending, as
was discussion on Amendments 2 and 3.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2264
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was recessed at 10:12
p.m. to a call of the chair. [The meeting never was
reconvened.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|