{"id":11147,"date":"2020-12-08T06:08:57","date_gmt":"2020-12-08T15:08:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.akml.org\/?p=11147"},"modified":"2020-12-08T06:24:15","modified_gmt":"2020-12-08T15:24:15","slug":"preparing-for-fy22-budget-vetoes-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.akml.org\/preparing-for-fy22-budget-vetoes-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Preparing for FY22 Budget – Vetoes Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

As we prepare for the release of the Governor\u2019s FY22 budget, it is worth reflecting on the last two years of budgets. One way to do this is to review the 240+ vetoes the Governor has made. Keep in mind that these came in three rounds. The first, after the FY20 budget, made severe reductions. Many of these were reversed by the Legislature. The second restored some level of vetoes that the Legislature had reversed; these stood. Then, the third round of vetoes came for the FY21 budget. These were released in the middle of the COVID-19 hunker down phase and to some extent in the belief that federal relief could be used to offset the reductions; the Legislature did not reconvene to try and restore funding for those expenditures it had included in its FY21 budget.<\/p>\n

The Governor\u2019s vetoes reflect 1) the fiscal situation the State finds itself in, and 2) the Administration\u2019s priorities. The State\u2019s continuing budget deficit was met the first year with a budget that featured significant cuts to the budget, cost-shifting to local governments, and preemption of shared revenues. Nearly $1 billion of the reductions or revenue claw back impacted local governments. The FY21 budget was a \u201cstatus quo\u201d budget, which left it to the Legislature to take action. Neither budget offered by the Governor significantly addressed revenues, other than to remove revenue from local governments; a lottery bill was offered this last year. In sum, the vetoes were made to make some attempt at reducing costs under the deficits the State faces.<\/p>\n

But they also are directed at programs that reflect the values of the Administration, and its priorities. They were described as hard choices, and impacting a variety of stakeholders, but just as hard a choice would have been to address the State\u2019s revenue shortfall. Instead, these vetoes were directed at social support systems that Alaskans rely on.<\/p>\n

The FY22 budget may reflect this same prioritization. If we look at how vetoes were ascribed, they fall into three or four buckets.<\/p>\n

Health and Social Services<\/p>\n