Gianforte’s Budget Steals Marijuana Dollars from Habitat

[R.K.]

Saw a post from BHA on this. Essentially, he’s not even following the amended law that reduced the funding after HB701 was passed. And I don’t recall the reduced funding getting any press. Then Gianforte decided to attack the journalists who reported on it.

More info below.

Governor’s budget withholds marijuana tax funds from FWP programs

After Gov. Greg Gianforte released his draft budget last week, some Montanans were disappointed to see that conservation programs weren’t slated to get as much money as they expected.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Straight Arrow]

Should not be any surprise. At least he's consistent. Jersey Greg is what you strongly voted for, Montana! We'll be feeling the skewering of FWP aftermath for a long while.

(However, I do acknowledge that Gov Greg has initiated some very worthwhile programs aside from wildlife, hunting, and public lands.)

 

[R.K.]

Should not be any surprise. At least he's consistent. Jersey Greg is what you strongly voted for, Montana! We'll be feeling the skewering of FWP aftermath for a long while.

(However, I do acknowledge that Gov Greg has initiated some very worthwhile programs aside from wildlife, hunting, and public lands.)

Like the “Move to Montana” nationwide ad campaign?

 

[RandanP]

Saw a post from BHA on this. Essentially, he’s not even following the amended law that reduced the funding after HB701 was passed. And I don’t recall the reduced funding getting any press. Then Gianforte decided to attack the journalists who reported on it.

More info below.

Governor’s budget withholds marijuana tax funds from FWP programs

After Gov. Greg Gianforte released his draft budget last week, some Montanans were disappointed to see that conservation programs weren’t slated to get as much money as they expected.

missoulacurrent.com

Where does the authority exist for the governor to ignore the allocations in statute? Is this not illegal?

 

[Finalshot]

Where does the authority exist for the governor to ignore the allocations in statute? Is this not illegal?

The governor's budget is only guidance. He does not control spending; the house does (same with the US President). The governor and the president issue their budget as the head of government. They always float stuff out in their budget that either can't, or won't be funded or they know will be funded. It's a snapshot of his priorities. It always changes. His party uses his budget to build the state or national budget; then, they wrangle over the details. However, keep in mind there is mandatory spending, so that's considered. The governor or the president has to figure out how to spend the state's revenue, how much, or if it will run a surplus and what to do with it, and/or decide how to pay for things when there's not enough revenue. Deficit spending. So, in the case of the weed law, even though the people spoke when it passed, the house can do what it wants with the money. What is ironic, the Republicans have a supermajority so they decide how to spend the money. The people of their district elect those republics.
In many cases, those citizens voted against (don't want legalized pot), but they now get to decide how to spend all that "dirty pot $$$" even though their constituents don't want legal pot. It's politics, it's messed up, but it is the sausage they get to make. Run for state office, then you can help decide how to spend the revenue. I think one has to be a bit nutty to take on that challenge these days, but hey, we have to have them or our system would not work.

 

[Straight Arrow]

His party uses his budget to build the state .... budget

His party is pretty much in lockstep with this Montana Governor. It's what voters decided when the polls formed West Dakota and East Idaho, based on Jersey imports.

 

[Finalshot]

What is ironic, the Republicans have a supermajority so they decide how to spend the money. The people of their district elect those republicans.
In many cases, those citizens voted against (don't want legalized pot), but they now get to decide how to spend all that "dirty pot $$$" even though their constituents don't want legal pot.

 

[RandanP]

The governor's budget is only guidance. He does not control spending; the house does (same with the US President). The governor and the president issue their budget as the head of government. They always float stuff out in their budget that either can't, or won't be funded or they know will be funded. It's a snapshot of his priorities. It always changes. His party uses his budget to build the state or national budget; then, they wrangle over the details. However, keep in mind there is mandatory spending, so that's considered. The governor or the president has to figure out how to spend the state's revenue, how much, or if it will run a surplus and what to do with it, and/or decide how to pay for things when there's not enough revenue. Deficit spending. So, in the case of the weed law, even though the people spoke when it passed, the house can do what it wants with the money. What is ironic, the Republicans have a supermajority so they decide how to spend the money. The people of their district elect those republics.
In many cases, those citizens voted against (don't want legalized pot), but they now get to decide how to spend all that "dirty pot $$$" even though their constituents don't want legal pot. It's politics, it's messed up, but it is the sausage they get to make. Run for state office, then you can help decide how to spend the revenue. I think one has to be a bit nutty to take on that challenge these days, but hey, we have to have them or our system would not work.

Thanks for the detailed response.

I guess I’m confused how they could spend money in a special revenue account for something other than the statutorily enumerated use? I’m guessing one of the first actions this year will be redoing HB 701.