Listen to “Hope and Budget in the Game of Politics” on Spreaker.
As much as numbers are to be loved — tools of logic that cut through emotion — the state budget is ultimately about politics. Those politics are now fully visible after House Finance released its committee substitute.
Veteran newsman Brad McElhinny has the full story.
There are several things to like about the House’s budget.
- First, it aligns with sound financial planning. Good budgeters don’t bet on the come when paying for obligations they know exist. Medicaid must be funded. Hope Scholarship commitments must be funded. Both are requirements under West Virginia law. Covering those expenses with general revenue — money reasonably certain to materialize — is more responsible than relying on surplus dollars that may or may not appear. History – surpluses ran in the past – is no guarantee of future success.
- Second, House Finance left roughly $30 million in general revenue unallocated for fiscal year 2027. The Governor’s proposal and the Senate version both spent every available dollar. The House chose a different approach: plan for uncertainty. Emergencies happen. Revenues fluctuate. Leaving a contingency provides stability when the unexpected occurs. Yes, West Virginia maintains more than $1 billion in rainy day funds. But those dollars are meant for true “break-the-glass” moments. Using them for routine pressures creates future obligations to replenish reserves and invites scrutiny from credit markets, potentially increasing borrowing costs for state projects.
None of that, however, is the real political story.
A mentor once framed opinions this way: take what I’m about to say, add a few bucks, and you might be able to buy a cup of coffee.
So be it here, too.
This budget exercise represents the House — and its leadership — pushing back on Governor Morrisey.
The evidence is ample: the House budget includes zero funding for the governor’s requested income tax cut. No ten percent. No five percent. Nothing. That’s not just fiscal prudence, it’s messaging.
Governor Morrisey faces an uncomfortable distinction, as one lawmaker put it privately: he’s the only one in the Capitol to have never cut taxes. Governors before him — primarily Jim Justice — did so heavily. Joining that club carries obvious political value.
The challenge for Morrisey is arithmetic and economic growth.
West Virginia can’t spend every penny it has without contingency — a Dave Ramsey-like emergency fund to cover routine expenses. The governor’s budget and the Senate’s budget don’t provide for such, and that’s fiscally concerning.
If economic growth were occurring, the existing trigger mechanism would automatically result in further income tax reductions. That hasn’t happened either, leading one to believe the economy isn’t growing fast enough to go beyond the originally conceived trigger structure.
West Virginia has already reduced revenue substantially through prior tax cuts. Funding another personal income tax reduction now requires either significant spending cuts — politically difficult or beyond just cost control — or replacing lost revenue with another tax. That’s hardly a compelling way to brand oneself a tax cutter and even a tax on vape products only yields $22 million of the $250 million required.
All of this unfolds while many West Virginians still drive on substandard roads, special education funding remains strained, and child welfare reforms require additional investment. The list is long.
Frankly, while an additional income tax cut might personally benefit some more than others, many residents would likely choose smoother roads, stronger schools, or better services over the relatively modest return they would see from another reduction. Remember, it’s 5 to 10 percent of the current bracket percentage – 4.82 percent in the top bracket currently compared to 4.34 percent as proposed in the Senate committee substitute – not an overall cut on effective rates.
Enter the Hope Scholarship and the effort to place guardrails around it.
Yes, reviewing allowable expenses is worthwhile. Continuous evaluation of public programs should always occur.
But policy review may not be the only motivation.
Operating again under the coffee metaphor — and political reality — Governor Morrisey appears to have stronger allies in the Senate than in the House.
“He’s got juice in the Senate, but not in the House,” as one lawmaker told me this week.
Fiscal conservatives in the Senate understand that dynamic, which helps explain why House members may be doing the heavier lifting early.
If the final negotiated budget resembles the House version — and that seems likely — passage will still require votes from senators aligned with the governor. Those votes may not come easily.
That’s where Hope Scholarship legislation could become leverage.
Revising the program creates negotiating pressure. It offers the House a bargaining chip: support the House’s more fiscally cautious budget, and the scholarship program remains largely untouched.
NEWS from Brad McElhinny: Legislation to refine the Hope Scholarship roils the Capitol
Meanwhile, the governor retains political tools of his own. A recent press release highlighting balances in Morrisey-aligned political action committees appeared less informational and more strategic — a reminder that campaign resources can be deployed for or against legislators who stand in support or opposition, respectively.
Many senators face credible primary threats, often from challengers with personal wealth or strong fundraising networks.
Do the math, and the dynamic becomes probable: senators must weigh loyalty to the governor against downside political risk of going against his budget desires, while the House uses potential Hope Scholarship changes to secure the budget framework it prefers — one that also denies the governor a signature tax-cut victory.
Architects of the strategy probably feel more senators “in the jackpot,” as one umpire famously said, are more likely to go with a no tax cut budget to protect Hope from restrictions, than would go against that budget and risk restrictions, thus abandoning loyalty to the governor.
All of this while insiders say they can move a budget out of the legislature early enough to block any gubernatorial line-item veto while still in regular session.
Governor Morrisey weighed in late Thursday afternoon via X.
“Tax cuts and school choice used to be page one of the Republican platform— guess House Finance Chair Vernon Criss hasn’t gotten that far,” Morrisey posted.
Reactions varied.
Would this analysis buy a cup of coffee on its own, or do I still need a few dollars to go with it?