A quick check of the budget says our Legislature acted like pretty big spenders this year, though just a hair less big than the Governor wanted (decreases in red):
| general funds | federal funds | other funds | total | |
| FY 2014 adopted | $1,312,583,507 | $1,691,241,801 | $1,086,806,915 | $4,090,632,223 |
| FY 2015 Daugaard proposed | $1,390,852,751 | $1,692,011,931 | $1,183,394,942 | $4,266,259,624 |
| FY 2015 adopted | $1,388,956,590 | $1,686,967,782 | $1,183,399,323 | $4,259,323,695 |
| 2014–2015 change | $76,373,083 | ($4,274,019) | $96,592,408 | $168,691,472 |
| 5.8% | 0.3% | 8.9% | 4.1% | |
| Daugaard–Legislature change | ($1,896,161) | ($5,044,149) | $4,381 | ($6,935,929) |
| (0.1%) | (0.3%) | 0.0% | (0.2%) |
If I'm reading the budgets correctly, this year's Legislature has approved 4.1% more spending than it approved last year. It countered a 0.3% decrease in federal funding (yay, self-reliance...right?) with a 5.8% increase in general funds and an 8.9% increase in other funds.
Cory,
Simplistically, I assume the percentages are correct. However, they are just that, simplistic (not being insulting). Government Fund Accounting practices are not like Generally Accepted Accounting Practices for business. For example, the use of funds this year to pre-pay bonds due in later periods gets counted as "expenditures" where in business they wouldn't show up in the Income Statement in a business. Simplistically again, government accounting looks more like cash flow statements in business than an Income Statement.
My point is all "expenditures" aren't equal and not all of them are for current operation of state government which is what most people presume when they see the term. (Accountants, don't beat me up too much. I know I took some liberties to explain this succinctly.)
Similarly, there could be anomalies in "other funds." For instance, I don't know where the Hot Springs Veteran's home shows up or how that is accounted for/if it is being bonded.
I don't want to bore you but accounting practices are different for different types of entities. For instance, Fund Accounting Practices for non-profits treat funds raised for a future capital campaign don't get counted as "income" in the year the funds are raised but are brought into "income" when they are spent.
Until you spend time delving into the rationale for the differences, they don't make sense. My point is the simple analysis has to contemplate the nuances of the type of accounting being used.