This bill would create a new article in the state finance law establishing an “Annual Spending Growth Cap Act.” It defines a spending cap for state operating funds spending based on the average of the prior three calendar years’ inflation rates, with the cap limited to 2 percent if that average is higher. The measure would prohibit the governor from submitting, and the legislature from acting on, a budget that increases state operating funds spending above that cap.
The bill also requires the governor to certify that the executive budget complies with the cap, or provide a reasonable inflation estimate if final data are not yet available. After the legislature acts on the budget, the comptroller must determine within five days whether the enacted budget exceeds the cap. If it does, the governor must take corrective action to bring spending back within the limit. The bill includes an emergency exception allowing the governor to declare an emergency by executive order and, with two-thirds legislative approval, enact a budget that exceeds the cap.
Impact
The bill would amend the state finance law by adding a new article governing annual state operating funds spending growth. It would constrain the executive budget process and legislative budget action by imposing a statutory spending limit tied to inflation, while excluding federal funds and capital project funds from the calculation. It would also assign new oversight and certification duties to the governor and comptroller, and create a supermajority emergency override mechanism for spending above the cap.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available context suggests the measure is a fiscal restraint proposal with an emphasis on limiting spending growth and increasing budget discipline. The sponsors listed indicate support from the bill’s introducers, but there is no recorded vote or transcript evidence here showing broader legislative sentiment. The structure of the bill suggests it is intended to appeal to advocates of spending limits and taxpayer protections.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on both the governor and legislature in the budget process, since it would legally bar action on budgets exceeding the cap unless an emergency is declared and a two-thirds supermajority approves the higher spending. Another likely area of debate is the formula itself, which ties spending growth to inflation and caps it at 2 percent, potentially limiting budget flexibility during periods of higher need or revenue growth. The emergency exception may also be contentious because it gives the governor initial authority to declare an emergency, while still requiring legislative supermajority approval to exceed the cap.
JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND PUBLISH AND SUBMIT TO THE ELECTORS A PROPOSITION OF AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION -- ESTABLISHING A STATE SPENDING GROWTH LIMIT BASED ON INFLATION OR PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH (Proposes a constitutional amendment to establish a state spending growth limit based on inflation or personal income growth.)
Proposes constitutional amendment to establish revenue responsibility through annual State appropriations cap limiting spending growth to one percent per year over six years and a permanent revenue responsibility fund reserved for reducing State pension benefit liabilities.