Turning Down Constitutional Spending Limit
April 8, 2004
"This was the first piece of a fiscal plan, and the crucial piece that would assure the public that there would be a realistic constraint on state spending," Murkowski said. "The arguments of the Democrat minority are simply unrealistic."
"The Senate Democrats voted 'no' on the basis that education was not exempt from the spending limit. However, this fails to recognize that the proposed spending limit included an adjustment for population increase, which would also be reflected in the foundation formula. It also fails to reflect yesterday's election results on the education bond issue in Anchorage, in which voters made clear that education spending, including spending on administrative facilities, needs closer public scrutiny," Murkowski said.
"We recognize that an
increased level of spending may be required to meet the needs
of Alaska's citizens," Murkowski said. "However, Alaskans
must be reassured that the state is only spending what is absolutely
"As Senator Dyson has pointed out, the 31 states that have adopted spending limits have enjoyed an inordinate difference in economic growth. This is because investors in a state's economy appreciate stable, predictable, and limited growth in government spending," said Murkowski.
In conclusion Governor Murkowski said, "We remain optimistic that the Legislature will take positive action on the recommendations of the Conference of Alaskans regarding use of the income of the Permanent Fund to support essential government services. The constitutional spending limit embodied within SJR 3 is a key component of that package of legislation. I look forward to a second vote on its passage in the Senate, with a positive result. I hope at least two Democrats will reconsider their position and change their votes on this crucial legislation, so we can fulfill our obligation to achieve a resolution of the state's financial crisis."
Source of News Release: