To assure accurate comparisons with the governor's recommendations versus the prior year's appropriation, MDN uses for the prior year the actual appropriations approved by legislature without adjusting based on any gubernatorial line-item vetoes, withholdings or spending restrictions.

The reason is to assure our tables compare "apples to apples", not "apples to oranges." What the legislature passes always is subject after the governor signs the bill to withholdings, now called "restrictions" by the administration.

In fact, in some years, governors signed bloated budgets when it was obvious there would need to be subsequent withholdings of spending authority.

The problem with supplemental appropriations for the remaining few months of the current fiscal year is that neither the legislative budget nor the governor's budget itemize the amounts provided to specific agencies.

Beyond that, a supplement approriation does NOT cover the budget year before the legislature, but the prior fiscal year. That confuses comparisons between the two budget years.

For major building construction and improvement projects, the capital improvements budgets include figures for the total number of years that a project is expected to require funding.

Thus, a large portion of the capital improvements budget involves funds that will not be spent in the first fiscal year. Instead, for future years, there are "reappropriation" bills to reappropriate the unspent funds for capital improvement projects.

Updating the budget table, I've thought maybe there should be a seperate table for capital improvement budgets.

The table does include a separate line for the billions of dollars in federal COVID-19 economic recovery funds the $3.38 billion of federal funds from "American Rescue Plan Act.

Unfortunately, neither the legislature's budget bills nor the governor's budget indicates which departments ultimately would get those funds. Another question is whether that unspent federal money simply is a transfer to agency budgets that show up in the detailed budgets.

The National Guard is a new department. Previously, appropriations to the National Guard was included in the Public Safety Department. So, to see the actual change for the Public Safety Department between the two fiscal years, add the National Guard funding to the FY 2023 figure for the Public Safety Department.

However, FY2024 is an exemption because the governor recommended and the House approved a nearly $1 million appropriation of General Revenue to finance Interestate highway improvements and expansion.

Much of that money was not spent in prior years. It's unclear how that money is allocated to various departments nor how much of that money The FY2023, FY2024 and FY2025 budgets contain billions of dollars from these federal funds making budget comparisons with earlier years extremely misleading.

In some cases, these federal funds have been used to fund costs normally covered by General Revenue. Much of the money gets tranferred to various state funds, obscuring how this federal largess is being used.

It is not deliberate deception. There is a deadline for the state to allocate those funds. Essentialy, the federal government's approach simpy does not recognize the budgeting processes and deadlines of the states.

The likely reason the $4.8 billion in General Revenue and bonds for expanding Interstate 70 to three lanes in both directions between St. Louis and Kansas City. That is a far higher amount than could be spent in a single year for such a huge project.

Unfortunately, neither the legislature's budget bills nor the governor's budget provide a breakout of which departments ultimately would get those funds. Another question is whether that unspent federal money simply is a transfer to agency budgets that show up in the detailed budgets.