Gov. Bobby Jindal released his budget plan last week, and the keyword this year seems to be “flexibility.”
Some, however, would replace that word with “fragility.”
Miraculously, the governor’s budget  isn’t subtracting further funds from higher education or health care, the two areas where Louisiana laws allow funds to be reduced in case of budget deficit. For a lot of people, that one crucial fact settles a lot of fears.
Call me biased, but I will support anything that keeps colleges and universities safe — in theory.
Jindal is also attempting to loosen protections guarding a number of dedicated funds that finance pest control and agriculture, among other things, which could free up a lot of money.
But Jindal’s proposed budget for next year is flawed nonetheless.
Much of the bill is focused only on the upcoming year. Little planning has been done past the immediate future, which is concerning.
Perhaps the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget buys into the 2012 prophecy? Hmmm.
In addition, the budget is based on legislation that has yet to be passed and money from prisons that have yet to be sold.
Jindal and his companions will no doubt push hard for the necessary laws to go through, but if even one crucial bill is halted by opposition, there is little in the way of a backup plan.
The LA GRAD Act will allow universities (LSU included) to raise tuition by 10 percent in the upcoming academic year, based on reaching certain academic incentives. This is on top of planned fee increases and budget cuts. While many university leaders approve of them, the tuition hike worries students, some of whom fear they will be paying more for less.
In addition, officials worry that raising tuition will turn potential college students away from Louisiana.
Though Jindal may not want to upset his constituents before his 2011 run for governor, the government may need to face the fact that taxing could be an option.
It could help fix the apparent imbalance in the budget, as well as relieve some of the negative impact on the population spheres that the budget hits hardest.
Many of Jindal’s proposed cuts would impact the poor and needy, such as at-risk youth and the homeless. Charity hospitals and treatment centers for these two groups would be awarded significantly less money and, in some cases, be completely done away with.
Rather than taking from the poor, Jindal could have focused on raising state corporate taxes. While taxing exorbitantly could lead to decreased settlement of businesses in Louisiana, taxing a reasonable percentage would bring in revenue without harming businesses.
The American Cancer Society, for one, supports increasing taxes on “cheap” Louisiana cigarettes to catch up with other state cigarette taxes — a tax increase that we would hope benefits the health of all Louisianians in the future by decreasing availability.
So even if cutting provisions for the homeless and at risk was necessary, it could have been done in addition to reasonable tax increases, reducing any drastic impact in one area.
Jindal also claims he is maintaining funding for several programs like the Minimum Foundation Program — but keeping the same number in the log isn’t the same from year to year because of inflation.
In the future, it may also be a good idea for LSU and other colleges to participate in fundraising so the schools have their own contingency plans if a budget deficit occurs.
Jindal’s budget plan is a step in the right direction, but it’s far from perfect. Louisiana would reap greater benefits from a comprehensive, long-term plan that takes into account the whole of Louisiana’s many resources.
Taking life one step at a time is all well and good, but you should always look where you’re going.
Macy Linton is a 19-year-old international studies freshman from Memphis, Tenn. Follow her on Twitter @TDR_Mlinton.
 
—-
Contact Macy Linton at [email protected]