JACKSON – Here it is early in May, with legislators back at home and the 2010 session done.

Later this month, Gov. Haley Barbour likely will sign into law the more than 100 appropriation bills that fund state government.

Last year at this time, the battle over funding the state budget had just begun in earnest and people were wondering if an agreement would be reached before the new fiscal year began on July 1.

Talk of a government shutdown and services was real because of the inability of the House, Senate and governor to reach a budget accord.

That accord was reached literally hours before the July 1 witching hour, averting a shutdown of all agencies except portions of the Public Service Commission and its staff. The PSC staff agency was shut down for a few days over a legislative disagreement.

This year that chaos was averted as a budget agreement was reached and passed in the normally allotted 90-day regular session, though not in the customary 90 consecutive days.

But who can complain about that?

During the Barbour administration it has not been uncommon for some aspect of the budget, whether it be Medicaid funding or education, to prolong the regular session or even necessitate a special session.

So the 2010 Legislature’s prompt finish in the midst of a revenue shortfall of historic proportions is surprising. But the reason it ended that way isn’t crystal clear.

It could be as simple as having less money to fight over. With state revenue collections dramatically down, budget negotiators had limited options.

But observers of the legislative process know that House and Senate members can fight for literally days over just about anything.

Another theory is that Senate Appropriations Chair Alan Nunnelee, R-Tupelo, eager to return to north Mississippi where he is running for the U.S. House, was more willing to compromise and avoid a long, protracted budget battle where all parties involved in the process are bloodied.

And Barbour, perhaps to accommodate Nunnelee, his party’s presumed standard-bearer in a key congressional race, also was more amenable to compromise.

But others, such as Sen. Hob Bryan, D-Amory, were adamant two weeks ago in the midst of final passage of the $5.5 billion budget that members of his own party in the House yielded too much in the negotiations.

Education

Bryan was particularly upset with the level of funding for education. He felt that more of the state’s reserve funds should have been tapped to prevent budget cuts.

He was particularly upset that negotiators opted not to place in a contingency budget the full $187 million the state might receive from the federal government in additional stimulus funds.

“Anyway you look at it we have a lot of funds available,” said Bryan at the end of the session, citing access to hundreds of millions in funds in reserves and in other areas that could have been tapped for the budget.

“I am telling you when we get home and see the impact of what we have done it is going to be even more indefensible because of all the money we have in the bank.”

Bryan was particularly upset that House negotiators, who in past years shut down the budgeting process to leverage more funds for education, did not put up more of a fight this year.

But House Education Chair Cecil Brown, D-Jackson, said they did.

“Maybe we could have done better,” he said, “but I couldn’t see it.”

He admitted that the House negotiators felt pressured to reach an agreement – especially after what happened last year when the state nearly began the new fiscal year without a budget.

“From the outside looking in, you might not appreciate the pressure we felt,” Brown said.

The final budget provides about $125 million less for kindergarten through 12th grade education than what was approved earlier in the session by the House and Senate. That is why some are upset with the amount negotiated by House and Senate leaders.

For the first time in recent years, both the House and Senate had agreed to roughly the same amount of funding for education. In the past, the House had voted to fund education and a considerably higher level than the Senate.

But when the final agreement was reached, many were disappointed.

Brown said a couple of things affected the outcome. First, because of the continuing sluggish revenue projections, legislative leaders voted to lower the revenue estimate by $113 million. That meant less money to budget.

To further complicate matters, Barbour and Nunnelee insisted that only 98 percent of the revenue be appropriated in case tax collections continue to come in below expectations, meaning a loss of another $100 million.

Barbour said he would veto any budget bill based on spending 100 percent of the projected revenue.

But in the end, Barbour and Nunnelee relented on that point. Barbour said he yielded after it became apparent the Senate leadership was going to acquiesce.

“I had anticipated legislators, especially on the Senate side, adhering to the 98 percent rule,” the governor said, adding he would prefer that 2 percent of the projected revenue be set aside. “If they are not going to adhere to the 98 percent rule, I know my job is to make the cuts when needed.”

Barbour also conceded on another key point. The governor had said he objected to placing any anticipated additional federal stimulus funds in a contingency budget that state agencies can use if and when they are finally received.

Congress is expected to provide an additional $187 million to Mississippi later this year.

Save some for next year

House and Senate leaders, without the governor objecting, finally agreed to place $110 million of the funds in a contingency budget and to save the rest for next year.

Bryan was particularly disappointed that not all of those funds were budgeted. Brown said House leaders proposed budgeting all the funds and offered a proposal that did just that.

It received no consideration from the Senate leaders and the governor, Brown said.

He added, “The governor wanted to carry them all forward. He had nothing. We were able to get agreement to use $110 million.”

One of the reasons to carry forward funds is to have more in the bank to deal with what many believe will be worse budget situations in the coming years.

Still, Bryan said, “We are going to do terrible things to public education now just because there is a potential we might have to do terrible things in the future.”