Serving the High Plains
Serving the High Plains
According to Albuquerque Journal guest columnist Barry Simon, New Mexico legislators lacked the will to tap into $2 billion to pay for health care, schools and public services.
But according to a recent presentation by State Auditor Tim Keller, scarcity is a myth. There is $4 billion sitting in department and agency bank accounts.
Of that amount, $2 billion, he says, should stay in those accounts. But $2 billion should be returned to the state's general fund.
Simon is calling for legislators to pass a bill that would return $2 billion allotted to departments and agencies for unfinished or unstarted projects to the state's general fund to solve the deficit.
A reporter with the Quay County Sun spoke to local Rep. Dennis Roch about the funds and the possibility of their use to solve the recent budget crisis.
Is there $2 billion dollars sitting in accounts that could be tapped into to help offset the deficit?
There is money set aside in various accounts. However, when you look at the accounts, it might seem like there is a lot of money. The problem is that the majority of the money in those accounts has been set aside for a specific purpose.
A large portion of those funds have been set aside for retirement funds, including state employees and judges.
Even if it was possible or legal to tap into that money, it would be a terrible plan. I could not support a plan that would take money from a fund that was established for those employees' retirement. The state made a promise in setting aside those funds. The employees made contributions to those funds in good faith that it would be there when they retired.
Have legislators looked at taking funds that were allocated to departments and agencies for projects that have not begun?
In the special session, funding was taken back by the state from agencies and departments whose projects were funded in 2013-14 through capital outlay funds.
The projects that lost funding were those that had not entered the design phase. These funds were taken back as part of the sweeps bill that legislators implemented during the January session and the special session in September.
So funding can only be taken from those projects that have yet to be started?
That's right; we can only sweep the funds from the projects that have not moved past the design phase. We cannot take the funds from those projects that have already started construction. Those projects are underway, the money that has been funded for those projects will be needed to pay for the services when the project is complete.
You cannot take money that is going to be used to pay a bill. If you do, then when that bill comes due, somebody is going to have to pay for the services that were rendered.
Have legislators looked at taking funds from other funds or accounts that have a built up reserve or cash balance?
The legislators have swept funding from hundreds of funds and accounts. Legislators even took money out of their own account. The legislative cash balance is used to pay for training and traveling expenses.
There are numerous accounts including the Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Safety Fund that is used to maintain and repair off-highway trails for all-terrain vehicle users and the Barbers and Cosmetologists Fund that is used for training and regulation for those professions.
The problem is that many of the pots, funds or accounts that could have money taken from them are a one-time funding solution. The money would be used to pay for reoccurring cost in the state. If you use the funds to pay for this year's reoccurring cost, you only created a bigger whole for yourself next year.
That reoccurring cost will be there the next year, but you have no savings or reserve. If the revenue continues to decline in the state, then you have no safety net as well. Those fund balances are what we call reserves, and they help protect the state when the budget drops out.
My argument as a fiscal conservative is the best move for the state is to try and reduce the re-occurring expenditures, look to reduce the amount of money you are spending every year on certain programs. Then you don't have to tap into your reserves. This would help to make the system more efficient for the next year and years to come.
- Compiled by QCS Senior Writer Thomas Garcia
