Sacramento County’s Post

State agency budget requests offer insights into the results of the first phase in the State Budget process, as well as into the needs State agencies identified to fulfill their missions. Agency requests for State Fiscal Years (SFYs) 2026 and 2027, submitted in early October, show both the proposed responses State agencies have to challenges and the constraints associated with estimated spending targets for the next State Budget cycle. Read more about the State agency requests in our latest blog:  https://lnkd.in/e7SEhriC 

We are planning on putting a longer think piece on the Budget out early next week - but one immediate reflection comes from Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's, media round this morning. The Budget assumed only a 1.3% per year real funding increase for the next (post 26) spending review period. Jones lent on the 2% annual public sector productivity target as a reason why the Government would not need to raise taxes to fund increases above this level. Getting there will necessitate good public-private partnerships, on which delivery of public services is heavily reliant. One area that is really clear is in the state of the public estate, where the (by historical standards) relatively generous 25/26 settlements for areas such as Justice, the NHS and Local Government are unlikely to touch the sides in terms of the need to upgrade the buildings and other capital. In all these areas, a poorly functioning estate is now a significant drag on the performance of public services. The reason the public estate has ended up in this state is because departments have raided maintenance budgets to fund day-to-day spend. The fact that the the new fiscal rules do not remove the in-year incentive for cash-strapped departments to raid their CapEx budgets to fill current spending holes is therefore arguably a key shortcoming - and a marked contrast to the 2000s rules, which did exercise some constraint on this. Arguably, unless a solution is found swiftly which involves private capital or some kind of wider partnership which effectively locks in spending, then the situation will get worse.

Progress on this - as picked up in yesterday's Health Service Journal, HMT has revealed that it will in fact update the Consolidated Budget Guidance to prevent departments from switching from capital to revenue allocations. Or rather - to make this tougher, by requiring HMT permission. This is good news. The fiscal rules fall some way short - contra HMT evidence to the pay review bodies - of removing the perverse incentive on government to prioritise revenue over capital. That's because, unlike the pre-2008 'Golden Rule', the new commitment to 'only borrow to invest' only bites in the future, not in the present; for the moment, the future means not until 2029. That's why additional restraints are so important. What will be interesting to see now is whether this form of restraint, absent stronger fiscal rules, is sufficient. HMT ministers will soon come under pressure from departments to allow exceptional cases, which they'll have plenty of discretion to do. Let's wait and see whether capital budgets are honoured - this will be a real test of the government's rhetoric about rebuilding for the long term.

You're thinking of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, a landmark piece of legislation in the United States aimed at eliminating the federal budget deficit by 1991. It was named after its sponsors: Senators Phil Gramm, Warren Rudman, and Ernest Hollings. Here's a breakdown of its key provisions and impact: Goals: Eliminate the federal budget deficit: The primary objective was to achieve a balanced budget by gradually reducing the deficit each year, culminating in zero deficit by fiscal year 1991. Mechanisms: Declining Deficit Targets: The act established annual deficit targets, decreasing each year until reaching zero in 1991. Automatic Spending Cuts (Sequestration): If the actual deficit exceeded the target for a given year, automatic across-the-board spending cuts (sequestration) were triggered to bring the budget back in line. These cuts were to be implemented by the Comptroller General, a non-partisan official in the legislative branch. Challenges and Controversies: Constitutional Concerns: The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that the automatic trigger mechanism, which granted the Comptroller General the power to implement spending cuts, was unconstitutional as it violated the separation of powers. This led to a revised version of the act in 1987. (*duster) Economic and Political Difficulties: Meeting the deficit targets proved challenging due to economic downturns and political resistance to spending cuts. The targets were repeatedly revised and ultimately not met. Focus on Short-Term Goals: Critics argued that the act's emphasis on short-term deficit reduction hindered long-term economic growth and investment in essential programs. Impact and Legacy: Raised awareness of the deficit: Despite its shortcomings, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings helped bring the issue of the federal deficit to the forefront of public debate. Paved the way for future budget control efforts: The act's focus on deficit reduction and its use of mechanisms like sequestration influenced subsequent budget control legislation, such as the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. Key Takeaways: Gramm-Rudman-Hollings represented a significant attempt to address the growing federal deficit in the 1980s. Although it ultimately failed to achieve its goal of a balanced budget, it played a crucial role in shaping the debate on fiscal responsibility and influenced future efforts to control government spending.

#CaLeg is working through a budget 💰 and the May Revise is only a couple of weeks away. But what exactly does that mean? (For those who don't work in the political industry) How exactly does the process work? Basic High-level Timeline: 📅 Jan. 10 - California Governor submits a budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year. 📅 Jan. - Budget Bills are designated in each house. Legislative Analyst Office reviews the proposal. 📅 Feb. to May - Budget subcommittees meet and discuss budget proposals. 📅 By EOD May 14 - Governor releases a May Revise. 📅 May - Full Budget committees finalize their proposals. 📅 June - Budget Conference Committee reviews the proposals from the two houses and combines them into one proposal. Both houses vote on the budget proposal. 📅 June 15 - Deadline for the main budget bill(s) to be passed. Things to keep in mind: 💵 California's fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30. 💵 If the legislature does not pass a budget by June 15, they work unpaid until it is passed. 💵 While the main budget bills must be passed by June 15, trailer bills designating specific funding can continue past the deadline, but must be listed in the main budget bill. Some basic definitions: 💲 Budget Bills - Each house at the beginning of the session designates a span of bills that will specifically address the budget. 💲 Budget Subcommittee - Each house has a budget committee. That committee is broken into subcommittees that focus on specific subject matters. 💲 Legislative Analyst - A nonpartisan office that reviews budgets (and some other legislation) and reports on estimated fiscal impacts. 💲 May Revise - A revision of the budget proposal the governor submitted in January. 💲 Budget Conference Committee - Members of the budget committees for each house come together to combine both houses' proposals into one budget. #cabudget #publicaffairs

Municipal Budget Presented with a Tightened Belt FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 20, 2024 Contact: Brian M. Ohler, First Selectman, North Canaan On Wednesday, March 20th, the North Canaan Board of Selectmen (BOS) presented their proposed municipal budget for the upcoming fiscal year to members of the Board of Finance. The new BOS has maintained a firm stance and position aimed at identifying any potential lines within the municipal budget that could be eliminated due to antiquated budgeting practices, as well as expenditures that have been far too inflated year after year. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2025 has been presented with a decrease just below 1%. The waste that was identified originated largely within line items that were broadly labeled “misc. expenses.” All three Selectmen were able to voice their own ideas for cost savings during two publicly-held special meetings. First Selectman Brian Ohler mentioned during these special meetings that he was, “proud of the precedent that the Board of Selectmen is setting by hosting these budget review sessions in an open and transparent manner. Never before has the Board of Selectmen opened up their initial budget conversations to the public. This commitment to transparency and dialogue will surely become the standard going forward.” As the proposed budget came together, the Board of Selectmen made clear that all departments must do their best to ensure a zero increase for the upcoming fiscal year. Residents have sounded the alarm for many years that taxes in North Canaan are far too high. This proposed budget is a responsible and accountable financial foundation for the upcoming fiscal year. Although large-scale investments may be on hold for the upcoming year, there is a plan in place that takes into consideration the valiant effort that is ongoing to restructure the Region One education budgeting formula. If this restructuring is realized, it would be a financial gamechanger for North Canaan. At that time, we will be in a much better financial position to start taking on many long-awaited infrastructure projects. The budgeting process is far from over. The Board of Finance will now take some time to review both the municipal budget and the two education budgets. Once that is complete, both boards will reconvene in an open discussion to address their thoughts about what has been proposed. As always, North Canaan residents will have the final say once a formal Town Meeting is announced in the coming months. ### https://lnkd.in/eD-tFNJP

BUDGET PADDING Earlier this year, Nigeria's Senate found itself in the midst of a scandal due to claims of significant budget padding in the 2024 Budget. These allegations emerged after Senator Ningi accused the budget of being inflated by an enormous N3.7 trillion. The term "budget padding" is used to describe the act of adding extra, unauthorized funds to a budget, which greatly increases the original amount. This practice can lead to a mismanagement of a country's resources, as it promotes wasteful public spending and detracts from the budgeting process' accountability and transparency. In the Nigerian Senate's situation, the accusations indicated that large amounts of money were inserted into the budget without justification, casting doubt on the budgeting process' credibility. In response to these allegations, Yemi Adaramodu, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Publicity, vehemently denied any instances of budget padding. He argued that the narrative of a N3 trillion padding was the result of a misunderstanding of budgetary arithmetic and procedures by those leveling the accusations. Adaramodu further clarified that the N3 trillion in question was not illicitly added nor was it missing; rather, it was allocated to government agencies as part of their standard funding mechanism. This controversy highlights the critical importance of finance professionals maintaining due diligence and ethical conduct in budgeting and financial management. Upholding transparency, accountability, and adherence to established guidelines is paramount to ensuring proper allocation of funds and maintaining public trust in financial systems. Do have a great day

It's budget development season at OSBM. What does that mean? We are working with our partners in state agencies and the Governor's Office to consider the best ways to serve North Carolinians with resources available for the FY 2024-25 state budget. Learn more about how the process works https://lnkd.in/gFqc7ukh #statebudgets

SERP-P NEW PUBLICATION: Policy Costing and Its Importance in Policymaking, Budgeting, and Oversight   Published by the Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department, this paper shows the importance of policy costing, which involves estimating the cost of legislative proposals, in supporting the Congress in its core functions of legislation, oversight, and representation. Policy costing enables legislators to prioritize expenditure or revenue measures, taking into account the government’s limited budgetary resources and the fiscal sustainability of proposed policies. Furthermore, it elevates the quality of policy debates and enhances the transparency of government budget data.   As of June 2023, the Department of Budget and Management reported 205 laws with funding deficiencies, 159 of which do not have a specified budgetary requirement. The accumulation of unfunded measures places pressure on the government to increase its deficits and hampers the intended provision of better services to beneficiaries. House bills on budget modernization seek to address this issue by requiring a Financial and Budgetary Information Sheet for each bill that adds to government expenditure. Hence, for the Philippines to successfully adopt policy costing, it is important to clearly define the purpose, scope, and institutional arrangements when preparing policy cost estimates.   Access the full publication here: https://lnkd.in/gS9mECuZ

It’s about time. “As of June 2023, the Department of Budget and Management reported 205 laws with funding deficiencies, 159 of which do not have a specified budgetary requirement. The accumulation of unfunded measures places pressure on the government to increase its deficits and hampers the intended provision of better services to beneficiaries. House bills on budget modernization seek to address this issue by requiring a Financial and Budgetary Information Sheet for each bill that adds to government expenditure. Hence, for the Philippines to successfully adopt policy costing, it is important to clearly define the purpose, scope, and institutional arrangements when preparing policy cost estimates.”