Much also has been misrepresented or misunderstood about SB 755.

The intent of SB 755 is to promote economic recovery by accelerating the construction of state projects under a balanced approach.

A substantial amount of appropriations for state projects have not yet lapsed. There is $2.4 billion in general obligation bonds authorized, but unissued, according to the latest information. I feel that authorized state projects should be accelerated since they already have appropriations. To me, this is the preferable approach, rather than adding more appropriations for new state projects, which will increase the long-term debt burden on taxpayers.

Summary of SB 755

SB 755 provides temporary limited exemptions for state projects from the special management area regulations and environmental review process. SB 755 does not include a blanket exemption for all state projects. Nor does SB 755 authorize exemptions for county projects or private projects.

SB 755 also does not exempt state projects from the National Environmental Policy Act, clean water and clean air laws, historic preservation laws, or endangered species laws. House Standing Committee Report No. 1683 on SB 755 includes a comprehensive list of the laws that would still apply to state projects.

Temporary Environmental Review Exemption Authority

The most controversial part of SB 755 temporarily authorizes the Governor to exempt certain state projects from the environmental review process. To exempt a state project, the Governor must find that the state project will “probably have minimal or no significant environmental effects on the environment”. In other words, under SB 755, the Governor cannot exempt state projects that probably will have significant environmental effects.

Under existing law, the Environmental Council has the authority to establish procedures for exempting the same types of projects.

The following is a side-by-side comparison of the relevant language in SB 755 and existing law.

I emphasize that the language in SB 755 for the Governor is the same as in current law for the Environmental Council.

Consequently, the protestations by opponents seem overblown. SB 755 does not authorize the Governor to confer a blanket exemption for all state projects from the environmental review process. I do not believe that the Governor would act less responsibly than the Environmental Council.

Types Of State Projects That Are Candidates For Exemption

What state projects would be candidates for the exemption?

SB 755 does not authorize, and I do not support, an exemption for state projects that clearly may have significant effects on the environment. To me, examples of state projects that should not be exempt include, but are not limited to, the construction of a new high school campus, community college campus, public safety complex, regional park, or highway. Moreover, any new state airport or harbor obviously should not be exempt (although none are anticipated to be constructed in the near future). Such state projects, at the least, should be subject to an environmental assessment.

Other types of state projects should be candidates for the exemption, especially if they are to be constructed within the footprint of an existing state facility.

The following is a list of state projects gleaned from the past two years of The Environmental Notice, the Office of Environmental Quality Control’s weekly publication. In my subjective judgment, these are the types of state projects that may qualify for an exemption.

As stated previously, the list is based on my subjective judgment.

I invite everyone to review on their own the state projects in the past Environmental Notices. I am confident that a reasonable person will logically conclude that some of the state projects would not have needed an environmental assessment.

House Strategy

Economic recovery and job growth in Hawaii are priorities of the House. Public resources, however, are unavailable for new or expanded business tax credits or employment programs.

Given this constraint, what may the Legislature do to maintain the economic recovery and job growth?

As a response, I repeat what I submitted to Civil Beat before the session:

My view is that the Legislature must be creative and willing to make difficult choices, some of which may be vehemently opposed by segments of the community. The Legislature must seek ways to expedite the construction of public infrastructure projects, so that money is quickly expended in the community. It is not sufficient to merely tout the “appropriations” for projects if actual “expenditures” do not quickly follow.

SB 755 is one of these choices.

About the author: Representative Calvin K.Y. Say currently serves as the Speaker of the Hawaii State House of Representatives.

The post Why Hawaii Needs to Pass the Environmental Exemptions Bill appeared first on 天美视频.

(1) To continue the balanced and responsible approach to budget-making; and

(2) To maintain the economic recovery and promote immediate job growth.

Continuation of Balanced and Responsible Approach to Budget-Making

The Legislature probably will not have to make another extraordinary effort to balance the state budget during the 2012 session, despite the recent downward projection of state general revenues by the Council on Revenues.

Because of the Great Recession, the Legislature during the past three years had to balance the state budget by a combination of painfully difficult expenditure reductions and targeted revenue enhancements. Of major significance, the Legislature was able to maintain essential public services without increasing the general excise tax rate or the income tax on low- and moderate-income persons. This balanced and responsible approach rejected extremism and expediency in favor of reason and fortitude.

This balanced and responsible approach, in my view, positioned Hawaii for the current economic recovery, which admittedly is still fragile.

This fragility of the economic recovery makes imperative the continuation of the balanced and responsible approach during the 2012 regular session. For the short-term, the Legislature must maintain stability with respect to the state budget. “Maintaining stability” means no new taxes that divert substantial new general revenues for the financial plan from private residents and businesses. “Maintaining stability” means no major general fund appropriation increase for the expansion of state programs.

Maintenance of Economic Recovery and Promotion of Immediate Job Growth

The economy of Hawaii is projected to grow only gradually in the near future. Jobs also are projected to increase only gradually. Yet, the recovery may be jeopardized by events outside our control, such as the European sovereign debt problem, rising petroleum prices, and federal budget sequestration.

What may the Legislature do to maintain the economic recovery and job growth if public resources are unavailable for new or expanded business tax credits or employment programs?

My view is that the Legislature must be creative and willing to make difficult choices, some of which may be vehemently opposed by segments of the community. The Legislature must seek ways to expedite the construction of public infrastructure projects, so that money is quickly expended in the community. It is not sufficient to merely tout the “appropriations” for projects if actual “expenditures” do not quickly follow. The Legislature also must seek ways to eliminate or suspend mandates or regulations on businesses that increase their costs and divert income that may otherwise be spent on employees.

My approach during the 2012 will be practical and realistic. This approach should not be construed as a lack on my part of long-term vision or “dreams”. Rather, this approach recognizes that, for the short-term, a foundation of stability must be maintained — a foundation on which more expansive “dreams” may be built in the future.

‘Unfunded Liability’

On a final note, I would like to make the term “unfunded liability” as recognized by the general public as “subprime mortgage.”

Four years ago, almost none of the general public knew what a “subprime mortgage” was (neither did I). Since then, the term has become well-known because of the defaults of subprime mortgages, collapse of subprime mortgage bonds, and major contribution of those factors to the Great Recession.

The “unfunded liability” of the State for public employees’ health insurance is huge. The amount of the “unfunded liability” affects the State’s credit rating, thereby affecting the amount of debt service that must be paid by taxpayers on borrowed money. More importantly, if the “unfunded liability” is not controlled, more and more public funds will have to be expended for public employees’ health insurance, resulting in less and less public funds available for other public programs. Or, taxes will have to be increased to pay for the liability when due.

This is the reason all residents and interests, not solely public employees, should be concerned about the “unfunded liability” of the public employees’ health insurance program. (I emphasize that I do not intend that any solution negatively impact present retirees from State or county government.)

About the author: Calvin Say is Speaker of the Hawaii House of Representatives. He is president of Kotake Shokai, Ltd. and Secretary of Tokyo Bento Nichiyo.

The post House Speaker: ‘Fragile Economic Recovery’ Will Be Theme of Session appeared first on 天美视频.

Dear Mike:

Your series of Civil Beat articles on conflicts of interest in the Legislature were well-researched, comprehensive, and thought-provoking.

I believe that all legislators want to do the right thing when conducting legislative business. All legislators use good faith in voting on issues, basing their votes on the public good rather than personal benefit.

I also believe that a part-time legislature is the best form of government for our State. A part-time legislature enables persons to serve as legislators while also holding other jobs. The diverse perspectives that result, in my view, are necessary for a well-rounded legislature comprised of legislators with real-life experiences and practical skills.

As long as Hawaii has a part-time legislature, potential conflict of interest situations will be unavoidable. This detriment, however, will be mitigated by proper public disclosure of legislators’ votes and financial interests. A legislator’s constituents will have the final say on whether the legislator deserves re-election.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my view that a legislator is elected to represent the legislator’s constituents, and that this “representation” is effectuated by voting on the issues. Thus, the right of a legislator to vote should not be restricted, except under extraordinary circumstances.

Sincerely,

Calvin K.Y. Say

Read our related coverage:

• No Conflict? When Reasonable Minds Disagree
• When Hawaii Reps Ask, Say Says ‘No Conflict’
• Tsutsui Let Lawmaker Vote To Confirm His Own Son
• No Conflict? Data Behind Civil Beat Series
• No Conflict? Ground Rules in the Hawaii House
• No Conflict? My Grandson Is a Med School Student
• No Conflict? I Am an Importer of Liquor
• No Conflict? At My Gas Station We Sell Petroleum Products
• No Conflict? I Live on Land Zoned Agricultural
• No Conflict? My Wife Is From Peru
• No Conflict? My Law Partner Lobbies This Bill
• No Conflict? I Serve on the Board of Directors of Legal Aid
• No Conflict? My Family’s in Mortgage Remodification With Our Lender
• No Conflict? I Have a Family Member at University of Hawaii
• No Conflict? I Own a Company That Brokers Health Insurance

The post Speaker Say: Hawaii Legislators Use Good Faith in Voting on Issues appeared first on 天美视频.

My discussion focuses on the difficult decisions made by the Legislature to balance the state budget. I attempt to explain and defend the actions of the Legislature, particularly the House of Representatives.

Comprehensive Public Employees’ Retirement System Reform

Before proceeding with the main substance, I would like to offer my prediction of what will ultimately be deemed the most important measure passed by the 2011 Legislature. This measure received relatively little publicity or media coverage during the session. Consequently, my emphasis on it may be surprising, a departure from conventional commentaries that trumpet more tangible, publicly appealing, and media friendly accomplishments. Yet, this measure in my estimation represents a significant pivot point in the future of Hawaii.

House Bill No. 1038 comprehensively reforms the public employees’ retirement system benefit, contribution, and service provisions for public employees hired after June 30, 2012. HB 1038 has immediate beneficial impacts, resulting in cost savings to public employers of $54 million in fiscal year 2011-12 and $92 million in fiscal year 2012-13. More importantly, HB 1038 is intended to limit future increases of public employer contributions for the system and prevent such contributions from assuming greater and greater portions of the State’s and counties’ operating budgets. Because of the bill, Hawaii should be able to avoid public employee pension crises such as those currently experienced by California and other states. Future taxpayers will gain the most benefit from HB 1038, a far reaching piece of legislation.

The most credit for passage of HB 1038 should go to the Employees’ Retirement System Board of Trustees and Executive Director, who initiated the measure, and Governor Abercrombie who fully supported it.

Beginning Co-Equal Priorities

The main substance of this commentary is the Legislature’s actions toward achieving the two co-equal priorities I had submitted to you before the 2011 session convened.

One priority is to maintain the economic recovery and job growth. The other priority is to pass a balanced state budget that funds essential public health, safety, and education services without a general excise tax increase and without another mass state employee layoff. As of this writing, the State faces a budget gap of between $800 and $900 million over this and the next two fiscal years.

The Legislature was successful in achieving the latter priority, but less so regarding the first. The primary reason for the difference in success was the reality of the state budget crisis, which worsened as the session progressed. The lack of available revenues prevented the Legislature from funding tax credits or employment programs needed for immediate job opportunities.¹

Balancing the Budget — Balanced Approach

After session began, the commonly acknowledged general fund budget shortfall was estimated to be a little more than $800 million over three years. The shortfall was based on the Council on Revenues general revenue projection of December 29, 2010. Subsequent projections, however, substantially lowered the anticipated revenue, resulting in an exacerbation of the shortfall by another $500+ million.²

Faced with a $1.3 billion general fund shortfall in late March/early April, the Legislature took a balanced approach to resolving the problem.

First, to address the immediate shortfall of about $200 million in this current fiscal year 2010-11, the Legislature transferred $16 million from non-general funds to the general fund, appropriated $40 million in rainy day funds and $42 million in hurricane relief funds, and authorized the Governor to utilize another $75 in hurricane relief funds if necessary. Those legislative actions, along with restrictions and contract cancellations by the Administration, were deemed sufficient to resolve the problem for this current fiscal year.

Next, for the fiscal biennium 2011-13, the Legislature both reduced appropriations and raised revenues, the same balanced approach taken during the past two years. Requested appropriations were reduced by about $618 million. Revenue enhancements, such as tax exemption suspensions, tax deduction limitations, fee increases, and non-general fund transfers, totaled about $660 million.³ In general, the revenue enhancement measures were focused on generating revenue from higher-income persons, visitors, and special interests.

The Legislature acted responsibly, avoiding the positions advocated by extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. Contrary to what some may believe, the Legislature did not solely raise taxes to balance the budget. Nor did the Legislature rely solely on spending cuts that would have decimated public services. Neither did the Legislature resort to tax refund delays to “kick the budget can” down the road as was done by the past Administration.

I am confident that the state budget passed by the Legislature does indeed fund essential public health, safety, and education services.

Obviously, the Legislature would have liked to appropriate more funds for lower and higher education, social services, economic development, and other worthwhile public services. Doing so, however, would have required the raising of substantial taxes, resulting in diverting more capital from the private sector than conducive to economic recovery.

Absence of General Excise Tax Rate Increase/Suspension of Certain General Excise Tax Exemptions

Very important from my perspective, the Legislature was able to balance the state budget without a general excise tax rate increase.

As the major revenue generating alternative to such a rate increase, the Legislature passed SB 754. The bill suspends the general excise tax exemptions for certain persons and activities for two years. Basically, SB 754 promotes fairness and raises revenue in a manner less detrimental to the economy than a general excise tax rate increase.⁴

Absence of Pension Tax

The state budget also was balanced without imposing a tax on pensions, one of the revenue enhancement options initially proposed by the Administration.

The House did pass a bill imposing a tax on the pensions of higher-income taxpayers exclusively. It, however, failed in the Senate. Under the bill, the pension of only the following would have been taxed:

(1) A married person filing jointly with an income of $200,000 or more;

(2) A head of household with an income of $150,000 or more; or

(3) A person filing an individual return with an income of $100,000 or more.

Persons with less than those income levels would not have been taxed. This point was not adequately communicated by the media.

Despite unfair criticism, I believe that the House took the right course and displayed political courage in considering and fully discussing the issue.⁵

Economic Recovery and Jobs

To achieve the priority of immediate job growth, I had introduced bills to provide tax credits for new employees, curtail business tax deductions not directly related to employment, and utilize temporarily special funds for public service employment programs (such as using the legacy land special fund for conservation employment rather than property purchases). None of those bills passed, however, because the state funds necessary for the programs had to be channeled instead to balance the budget.

Nevertheless, the Legislature did lay the groundwork for continuing economic recovery.

At the initiation of the Governor, the Legislature in HB 200 appropriated $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2011-12 and $1.0 billion in fiscal year 2012-13 for capital improvement projects. The appropriations will serve the dual purposes of improving infrastructure and providing jobs.⁶

Much was accomplished for the promotion of renewable energy, an area promising for economic development and necessary for reducing the export of dollars for fossil fuel purchases.⁷ For example, SB 1347 permits the spreading of renewable energy costs among a public utility’s affiliates and ratepayers. Although the bill did not receive as much attention as SB 367, the undersea cable bill (which failed), SB 1347 has the potential for accelerating renewable energy development, particularly on the neighbor islands.

The Legislature also passed HB 1342, which provides for expediting of permits for broadband infrastructure, and HB 677, which requires the establishment of a food safety and security program for local farmers to enable sale of their produce. Both, hopefully, will set foundations for the telecommunication and agriculture industries to evolve and grow.

Governor Abercrombie’s Leadership

Finally, I would like to acknowledge Governor Abercrombie for his leadership during the session. He was in the forefront, leading the effort to resolve the budget crisis and enact structural fringe benefit and tax reforms. Although he has been criticized by some for lack of success, I would disagree. By personal example, he showed courage and fortitude in attempting to achieve an ambitious agenda. To me, there is much more worth in a person who tries to reach many difficult goals, thereby heightening the risk of failure, rather than one who espouses few “easy” goals, thereby ensuring a pale “success”. Governor Abercrombie, with his “New Day” leadership, is clearly the former.

About the Author: Representative Calvin K.Y. Say currently serves as the Speaker of the Hawaii State House of Representatives. Speaker Say is the first Chinese-American to serve as a Chamber Speaker.

Elected President of the National Speaker’s Conference by his House (Assembly) Speaker colleagues across the nation in 1999, Speaker Say is now a senior member of the organization, and is nationally recognized as an expert on State budget issues and fiscal challenges.

Endnotes:

¹ Conflict Between Balancing the Budget and Programs for Immediate Job Growth

In my pre-session commentary, I had foreseen the possibility of a conflict between balancing the budget and immediate job growth initiatives:

I, however, recognize that the priorities will compete for state funds. Promoting immediate private sector job growth may require the granting of tax credits of funding of employment programs. This will cost the State money that then cannot be used to balance the budget. Conversely, restoring funds for state services and employee compensation may leave little or no funds left for private sector job programs.

² Council on Revenues’ Decreasing General Fund Tax Revenue Projections

The following displays the decrease of the Council on Revenues’ projections from December 29 to March 29, 2011 (after the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power plant disasters in Japan):

³ Major General Fund Revenue Measures

The following are the major general fund revenue measures passed for the fiscal biennium 2011-13.

One major point of emphasis is that the following total of $658.7 million is not generated solely from tax increases. Of the total, $559.2 million is generated from “tax or fee increases” (HB 1039, SB 570, HB 754) while $99.5 million is generated from non-general fund or other transfers (HB 775, SB 120, SB 1186).

⁴ General Excise Tax Exemption Suspension — SB 754

SB 754 suspends for two years (from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013) the general excise and use tax exemptions for certain persons and business activities. During the two-year suspension period, the formerly exempt persons and business activities will be subject to the four per cent general excise or use tax rate (but not the 0.5 per cent surcharge in Honolulu for the rail project).

Reasons for supporting passage of SB 754 are the following:

(1) The bill is the major revenue generator for resolving the $1.3 billion general fund shortfall over the next fiscal biennium.

SB 754 generates, for the general fund, $169.8 million in fiscal year 2011-12 and $216.0 million in fiscal year 2012-13. The general funds, along with other revenue enhancements/diversions and $618.0 million in budget cuts, are necessary to close the budget gap.

(2) The bill is supported by the Governor and part of the Administration’s financial plan.

(3) The bill promotes fairness.

Suspending the exemptions eliminates a preference for the formerly exempt persons that other businesses do not have. Many businesses, such as restaurants, supermarkets, accounting firms, etc., do not enjoy general excise tax exemptions. In effect, those businesses must make up for the tax revenues foregone through the exemptions.

This unfairness would have worsened if the general excise tax rate had been increased without suspending the exemptions. The businesses without exemptions would have had to pay more taxes while the exempt ones would still pay $0.

(4) The bill is the major alternative to an increase of the general excise tax rate.

The House position was that a general excise tax rate increase would have raised the cost of doing business and cost of consumer products and services much more than would have occurred under SB 754. Raising the cost of business and cost to consumers would have negatively impacted the economic recovery. Moreover, a general excise tax increase would have been regressive (although this effect could have been mitigated by tax credits for low-income persons).

Most of the general public mistakenly assumes that a one per cent general excise tax rate increase will require them to pay just one cent more on every dollar of purchase. This mistaken assumption ignores the pyramiding effect of a rate increase, an effect in which the taxes at previous transaction levels are hidden in the price of the final product or service.

(5) The bill is consistent with the way the general excise tax is supposed to work.

Opponents of SB 754 argue that the bill will force them to pass-on the newly imposed tax. The argument fails to recognize that the general excise tax is set up for the pass-on of the tax at every transaction level. That is why the general excise tax rate is so low compared to the sales tax rates of other states.

Moreover, this argument fails to recognize that the pass-on would have been much worse if the general excise tax rate had been increased.

In sum, suspending the general excise tax exemptions will have lesser detrimental impacts and be fairer than increasing the general excise tax rate.

⁵ Pension Tax — HB 1092/SB 570, HD 1

HB 1092/SB 570, HD 1, had proposed to tax the pensions of higher-income taxpayers only. A taxpayer’s pension would have been taxed if:

(1) The taxpayer files a joint return and earns more than $200,000 in federal adjusted gross income;

(2) The taxpayer is a head of household and earns more than $150,000 in federal adjusted gross income; or

(3) The taxpayer files a single return and earns more than $100,000 in federal adjusted gross income.

If a taxpayer has a federal adjusted gross income of less that the applicable trigger, the taxpayer’s pension would not have been taxed.

“Federal adjusted gross income” basically means income less certain adjustments and deductions. (See the first page of IRS Form 1040 for the manner in which “federal adjusted gross income” is calculated.)

Reasons for supporting the proposal were the following:

(1) The bill would have promoted fairness.

Other retirement income, such as 401(k)s, are already taxed by the State and federal governments. In the future, most private sector retirees probably will have 401(k)s that are taxed while public employees will still have traditional pensions. As the Director of Taxation testified: “It is a fair tax policy to treat the taxation of employer-funded retirement income similar to the self-funded retirement income.”

(2) The bill was narrowly focused on higher income taxpayers with pensions.

The State Tax Department estimated that less than one per cent (0.7%), or about 3,900 tax filers, would have been affected.

(3) The taxing of pensions was recommended by the Tax Review Commissions of 1995-97, 2001-03, and 2005-07.

(4) The bill would not have broken any promise.

Opponents claim that there was a “promise” that pensions would never be taxed. No document with such a “promise” has been produced.

⁶ Highway/Road Funding Bills

On the subject of infrastructure and jobs, the Legislature also passed bills to generate revenues for highway and road construction, maintenance, and improvement. SB 1328 raises the vehicle registration fee and SB 1329 raises the vehicle weight tax. Although the bills increase the tax and fee burden on drivers, the resultant revenues are intended to address a major constituent complaint: poor highways and roads. Constituents generally understand that, if they want better highways and roads, they will have to pay for the improvements. Expenditure on highway and road construction, maintenance, and improvement also will generate jobs.

After much contemplation, the Legislature chose not to pass a bill increasing the fuel tax. The Legislature felt that a fuel tax increase at this time would have compounded the gasoline price hikes currently faced by drivers.

⁷ Renewable Energy Bills

Renewable energy bills passed during the 2012 session included the following:

HB 1520 On-bill financing. Supports the State’s clean energy objectives by requiring the public utilities commission to investigate an on-bill financing program that would allow electric company (i.e. HECO) customers to purchase or acquire a renewable energy system or device, and provide for billing and payment through the customer’s electricity bill.

SB 1347 Achieving portfolio standard. An electric utility company and its affiliates may aggregate their renewable portfolios in order to achieve the renewable portfolio standard. This bill allows the spreading of renewable energy costs and expenses to a utility’s affiliates and their ratepayers, and to recover costs and expenses through a surcharge.

SB 1244 Biofuel facilities. Expands the renewable energy siting process to include biofuel production facilities with the capacity to produce and distribute 100,000 gallons or more of biofuel annually.

SB 631 Renewable energy systems on agricultural lands. Allows renewable energy systems on class B and C agricultural lands.

SB 704 On-site systems. Exempts certain third party owners or operators of renewable energy on-site systems from regulation by the public utilities commission.

SB 1482 CIP reasonableness. Requires the public utilities commission to consider certain fossil fuel factors when determining the reasonableness of a public utility’s proposed capital improvement projects.

SB 181 Photovoltaic for single family homes. Establishes a working group to determine the feasibility of requiring all new residential single family construction to incorporate the design and minimum installation equipment needed for future adoption of a photovoltaic system.

The post Speaker Say: Reflections on the Session appeared first on 天美视频.

Despite the substantial budget cuts, funds were preserved for child protective services, agricultural inspectors, and other essential state services.

The Hawaii economy is recovering from the Great Recession, but the recovery remains fragile. This has resulted in less than robust increases of jobs for our residents and tax revenues for important state services. Many difficult decisions again will be necessary — decisions that may be unpopular with segments of our community.

Consequently, the short-term future requires responsible, effective, and proven leadership, especially with a new Administration in place. The House has the experience, knowledge, insight, and political courage to continue leading the State through the difficult decisions of the next two years.

I have two co-equal priorities. One priority is to maintain the economic recovery and job growth. The other priority is to pass a balanced state budget that funds essential public health, safety, and education services without a general excise tax increase and without another mass state employee layoff. As of this writing, the State faces a budget gap of between $800 and $900 million over this and the next two fiscal years.

I will do my best to achieve these priorities.

I, however, recognize that the priorities will compete for state funds. Promoting immediate private sector job growth may require the granting of tax credits or funding of employment programs. This will cost the State money that then cannot be used to balance the budget. Conversely, restoring funds for state services and employee compensation may leave little or no funds left for private sector jobs programs. Despite this competition for funds, I am confident that the House will reach an appropriate policy on these priorities.

(On a side note, I support Governor Abercrombie’s call for more capital improvement project spending to increase jobs. Many of those projects, however, cannot begin immediately because of the necessity for pre-construction planning, design, and permitting work.)

Another priority one rung below the previous two is structural reform of the public employees’ fringe benefit programs. The costs of health insurance and retirement contributions for public employees are rising. If structural reform is not enacted now, I fear that the costs of these fringe benefits will continue to rise sharply into the future, assuming a larger proportion of the state budget, and resulting in a substantial burden on future generations. (Concerning this priority, I will support reform only if “prospective”, affecting new public employees and not current retirees. I will not support any diminution of benefits for current retirees.)

I am optimistic about Hawaii.

During the Great Recession, state government and the community recognized Hawaii’s economic and fiscal problems, engaged in spirited debate on how to address those problems for the overall best interest of the people, and resolved those problems through a balanced, responsible, and effective approach, rejecting extremism, negativity, and special interest pressure. State government and the community recognized and confronted reality head on, and made many difficult, politically unpopular decisions that have now placed our State in a better position than many others.

For the future, I am confident that state government and the community will act and reach solutions in the same manner.

Calvin Say has been Speaker of the House since 1999.

The post Fragile Recovery Requires Proven Leadership appeared first on 天美视频.