Gov. Phil Bryant on Tuesday ordered a third round of spending cuts in the current Mississippi budget. With four months to go in the fiscal year, the governor has cut a total of $151 million from the state’s $6.4 billion budget, or a little bit more than 2 percent.
Generally, that’s the prudent way to run things. If the state doesn’t have the money because tax revenues are lower than expected, then it can’t spend it.
A majority of the Legislature probably agrees with Bryant’s decision, but it is clear they cannot bring themselves to decide that some things are worth finding extra tax revenue. And they can’t resist the temptation to give away unnecessary gifts.
The chairman of the House committee that plays a key role in deciding how the state raises revenue changed his mind Tuesday and killed a bill that might have wound up increasing gasoline and cigarette taxes.
Perish the thought that a little extra money could be put to good use — such as higher gasoline taxes to fix the highways that do so much to improve commerce in the state.
The Republican majority in the Legislature clearly wants to avoid raising any taxes. That’s what they got elected to do, and it’s understandable — though a bit shortsighted.
However, this anti-tax determination unfortunately extends to giving away tax breaks, another tendency that was on full display Tuesday.
In the House, representatives passed by a wide margin a bill that included $45 million borrowing on behalf of Ingalls Shipbuilding. To be fair, the state agreed to the loan several years ago and was obliged to complete the transaction. But it’s still quite a nice gift.
Over in the Senate, lawmakers agreed to a bill (with only two dissenting votes) that reduces the amount of money new industries must invest in order to get a big break on local property taxes.
An industrial developer now must spend $100 million to qualify for a reduction of up to two-thirds of its property taxes for 10 years. The Senate bill, if it becomes law, would reduce the required investment to $60 million.
Truthfully, this sounds like a reasonable economic development incentive — although cutting property taxes by two-thirds seems a bit too generous. It’s an acceptable risk for a county to sacrifice property tax revenue for a decade in the hope that afterward the recipient will pay their full share for many decades.
But the broader point of continued giveaways to the largest taxpayers undercuts the Republican argument that no state taxes should ever be increased.
After all, if somebody gets a gift from the state or only pays a county one-third of its property taxes, then somebody else has to make up the difference. That somebody else is usually everybody else.
The Legislature refuses to recognize that some problems — highways among them — require more money. Reducing the gifts might free up some of those funds for public benefit.
