By Julie O’Donoghue, Louisiana Illuminator
Ultra-conservative Louisiana House members who tried to block Gov. John Bel Edwards and legislative leaders from spending more state funding saw $22.8 million in government projects pulled out of their political districts last month.
Edwards vetoed $8.9 million worth of projects in communities where House members who voted against raising the state’s spending cap live. Republican legislative leaders also yanked $13.9 million worth of spending from those same districts.
The impacted projects include those for roads, a health center, drainage, roundabouts, a community college, water treatment plants, public safety complexes and sewer systems.
The governor and legislative leadership have not offered a public explanation about why the funding was removed, but the ultra-conservatives said they are being punished for refusing to go along with a plan to spend more government money.
“I see it as bullying to be honest with you,” said Rep. Danny McCormick, R-Oil City, who voted against the spending cap and then had $465,000 worth of projects in his district vetoed and another $853,000 cut by legislative leadership.
Dubbed the fiscal hawks, this group who tried to block the state from spending more money is rather small. Only 19 of 144 lawmakers ended up voting against lifting the spending limit, which allows the governor and lawmakers to use an extra $1.65 billion over the next 12 months.
Lawmakers who voted to raise the cap said it’s only fair their colleagues who made it difficult to access additional money not be able to benefit from it. But legislators whose districts lost money said the funding cuts don’t just hurt them but also their constituents, some of whom are Democrats that support Edwards.
“I think it’s petty and juvenile to react this way,” said Rep. Raymond Crews, R-Bossier City, who had $1.3 million worth of projects from his community vetoed and another $1.7 million removed by legislative leaders.
“This is just the old-style of Louisiana politics that everyone is fed up with,” he said.
On top of the $22.8 million removed, the conservative lawmakers also had $240 million of “trailing money” cut from projects in their districts. Trailing money differs from other funding allocations because it is not guaranteed. It is a promise to give money to a construction project in future years.
Legislative leaders removed $205 million of those earmarks right after the spending cap vote, and the governor cut another $35.1 million through vetoes.
Though it isn’t guaranteed, the removal of trailing money can delay a construction project and make it harder to get funded in future years. Many projects need money to be included as trailing dollars first in order to secure funding later.
Some areas of the state were hit harder than others. Rural Vernon Parish in the western part of the state lost nearly $5 million in funding and $7.4 million in trailing dollars to Edwards’ vetoes. Both of the parish’s representatives, Republicans Charles Owen and Rodney Schamerhorn, voted against raising the spending cap.
Legislative leadership also removed $750,000 worth of funding and $8 million worth of trailing dollars for sidewalks and water system projects from Carencro after its hometown Rep. Julie Emerson voted against raising the spending cap.
Still, not every project the governor or legislative leadership removed was from a district of a legislator who voted against busting the spending cap.
Rep. Gabe Firment, R-Pollock, voted to raise the cap, but the governor still vetoed two projects in his district — $150,000 for a wastewater plant project in LaSalle Parish as well as $3 million in funding and $8.7 million in trailing dollars for a new juvenile detention center in Grant Parish.
The governor is upset with Firment for pushing legislation to ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender children — a bill Edwards has also vetoed — but Firment said he’s not sure that dispute is responsible for the detention center money being pulled. Instead, he said the governor might be backing a competing juvenile detention project in Rapides Parish.
“It is mind-boggling how that [detention] project got vetoed. They’ve been working on this for 25 years,” Firment said.
Rep. Daryl Deshotel, R-Marksville, is also unclear about why $3 million for a recreation and education complex in his district was vetoed. The project is one of the few in Avoyelles Parish included in the state construction plan, Deshotel said.
Deshotel also voted to raise the spending cap, though he initially proposed a lower spending limit than the $1.65 billion lawmakers ended up approving. The governor could be upset that Deshotel pushed a lower figure during the legislative session.
Edwards has not explained his line-item vetos.
Rep. Robby Carter, D-Amite, also had all projects removed from his district by legislative leaders, including $34 million in trailing dollars for an Amite wastewater treatment plant and $240,000 for various plans in his home parish of St. Helena. Carter voted to raise the state’s spending limit but clashed with House Speaker Clay Schexnayder, R-Gonzales, over carbon capture plans for the region.
Carter said he has reached out to Schexnayder multiple times seeking an answer on why his funding was cut, but hasn’t received a call back. Schexnayder also didn’t respond to a phone call or text message from an Illuminator reporter Thursday.
“If you get an answer from him, let me know,” Carter said in an interview. “I don’t think it’s fair to cut anybody when we’re paying the same taxes.”
The governor and legislators haven’t always consulted each other on what projects should be removed. Edwards is upset that legislative leaders cut money for the Jimmie Davis bridge in Shreveport, a waterline to a new women’s prison in Iberville Parish, and two port projects in St. Bernard Parish. He said all three were statewide priorities.
Edwards also suggested in a veto letter that many of the projects that remain in the state construction plan will never come to fruition. Legislators included significantly more spending than the state has the capacity to execute, particularly in the trailing dollars category.
“The overall magnitude of the bill as finally passed is far beyond the state’s capacity to fund it in any reasonable way or amount of time,” Edwards wrote. “The intent of the capital outlay bill is to provide for a five-year capital outlay budget. However, the general obligation bond portion of the enrolled House Bill 2 is well over a 10-year plan.”
Edwards said the next governor, who takes office in January, and the legislature will have to make decisions about which of the projects included in the bill will still get to move forward.