Arkansas Blog

"Beebe says the congressional delegation is liaison enough."

I would agree with the governor if we had a congressional delegation. Can't think of a time when our state's congressional delegation was such a towsack of nothings.

"Beebe says the congressional delegation is liaison enough."

I would agree with the governor if we had a congressional delegation. Can't think of a time when our state's congressional delegation was such a towsack of nothings as they are presently.

*excuse the double posting*

This is the first good judgement I recall seeing from Mike in quite some time.

Yet another example of Huckabee's inflated ego at everyone else's expense.

Not wasting money is always a good idea. Appropriate collection of potential dollars is also a good idea. I return to the toothless 1.5% tax on gas for the highways that are increasingly used for exporting our resources. Beebe needs to spend less time combing his hair and patting himself on the back and get to work on some real issues.

"Can't think of a time when our state's congressional delegation was such a towsack of nothings."

Oh, for the days of Wilbur Mills, John McClellan, Bill Fulbright, and John Paul Hammerchmidt. They were not without a wart here and there, but those old boys did make for a REAL congressional delegation.

"In fiscal 2006, the Washington operation cost the state just less than $306,000," sayeth the news article. This won't be news at all, with possible exception to DC landlords and furniture rental agencies unless this $306,000 is removed from the Governor's Office budget. Unless and until line item removal happens, this is just more of the same old same old.

The question some intelligent reporter (oxymoron?) should follow up with is, "So Governor Beebe, does this mean the Governor's Office budget for the next biennium will be reduced by $306,000, after adjustment for whatever inflation numbers you and Wiess put together?"

The second question some intelligent reporter (oxymoron?) should follow up their first question with is: "So Governor Beebe, does this mean that the Governor's Office budget for the next biennium will be reduced by the five Governor's Office staffers originally budgeted and hired for the Washington, DC Office? Specifically, will the Governor's Office staff levels be reduced from the 59 budgeted in the 2007 biennial budget down to the 54 orignially in the budget before Huckabee increased it to support the DC office?"

OK, the last questionturned out to be two questions and may overpower capabilties of the typical Little Rock reporter, but you get my idea.

No savings in the budget next biennium over this biennium means that this little closing gesture turned out to be a budget padding decision and not a cost cutting decision.

I guess while I am at it, I should also mention that little - and unreported - legislative action which provided the Beebe administration with an additional FIVE employees to the budget of 59 employees. Check out the Governor's Office Supplemental Budget passed in the O& session, Act 94. This little beauty gives not only 5 additional employees at an additional $598,391 in cost to the Arkansas taxpayer, but also includes a provision allowing the Governor's Office paymasters to exceed the levels of pay authorized in the Huckabee budget by no more than 20% (should be read that we can give them a 20% raise) for no more than 1/3 of the positions authorized in the original Huckabee budget of 2005. Some inquiring minds were rather surprised that Harriman would take such a pay cut as to drop down to the levels paid Brenda Turner. I guess the 20% increase should answer some of those questions.

It will definitely be fascinating to see the Beebe levels of funding for 2009. He has an additional 5 jobs padded to the budget, so even if he drops the five from the DC office, it is as wash. (Max, you worried about what Jason was doing. Why now worry now about what the five DC staff positions were doing for the last 2 years and also what the 5 new positions were doing for the last two years. You might also ask who received raises under the special language in Act 94 and you also might ask how much those raises were. You really might you know.)

Looking back on the Beebe precedence for budgeting we find:

His budget for legislative expenses during the 07 session jumped to $302,278 versus $197,285 just a short two years earlier. (In case you wondered, it cost taxpayers $104,993 more to get the Governor's Office through the regular session of 07 than it did in 05. Just something on the order of 153% for 07 of what it cost in 05)

His budget for Governor's Office operations jumped to $5,123,232 in 07 over the 05 budgeted levels of $4,779,307, or an increase something on the order of 7%. But wait, we forgot to add in that little supplemental increase of five employees provided for in Act 94. So we change from 59 employees up to 64 employees (something on the order of 8 increase in the size of his office government) and jump in dollars spent by $598,391. Add these numbers into his 07 budget since they are part and parcel of the same expenditure pot and we jump up to a staggering single year cost of $5,721,623 just to operate the same Governor's Office as the previous budget held (something on the order of close to a 20% increase in budgeting levels and all for a single year of operation. Take in the two years of the biennium and we are looking at an increase somewhere in the range of between $1.8 million and $1.9 million...

One final question to ponder - if no one is staffing the DC office, why has the Governor's office expended well in excess of $300,000 as the story pointed out? And, if the money isn't being spent there, as budgeted, where is it being spent?

Yes Max, we should really be concerned about what Jason Brady was doing up there. At least there was proof of bodies and offices and equipment for the expenditures made. What does Governor Beebe have to show for either a) the expenditures made, or b) the dollars budgeted? Are those dollars sitting in the budget waiting to be returned to the state coffers? Or are they being spent willy-nilly despite how the budget specified them to be spent?

Do you know how many states have offices in Washington that do work independent of the congressional delegation, unburdened by district disputes and partisan squabbling and the weight of international affairs? A lot more gets done, I hear, which is why a majority of states have them. But I guess Arkansas is once again content to be relegated to the bottom rung of states. Even Mississippi has a federal office now.