Jason Mercier & Marsha
Richards | Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Facing a taxpayer revolt against massive tax increases approved this year,
some Oregon lawmakers are searching for a silver bullet to keep their budget
in the black. Many are looking for it among various tax reforms.
Unfortunately, focusing on tax reforms is not the answer. There is no recession-proof
tax structure. Washington reformers talk about the need for a state
income tax, and Oregon reformers talk about the benefits of a sales
tax, but when it comes down to it, neither is immune to fluctuations in the
economy.
The real solution is to start at the beginning with meaningful budget reform.
While many states are improving various parts of the budget processsuch
as the development of performance indicators and outcomesfew if any understand
how to link all the parts together to make the process whole. Responsible budgeting
requires a clear connection between core governing functions, agency mission
statements, goals and objectives, performance measures, performance evaluation,
and the budget-writing process itself.
Connecting all of the dots is crucial. Many key decision makers view performance
measures as the bottom line in state budgeting, but these measures will not
achieve intended goals unless they are driven by clearly defined core functions
of government. Delivering services efficiently and effectively is hardly significant
unless government knows what it is supposed to deliver and why.
When asked recently how Oregons budget reflects the numerous performance
benchmarks developed for programs, Audit Division Director Catherine Pollino
replied: All agencies are required to have performance measures as part
of the budgeting process, but budgets are not linked to the measures.
Thats a problem.
If dollars spent are not tied directly to a definable outcome or product,
how can accountability and success be measured? How can lawmakers ensure efficiency?
How can taxpayers know if the states budget problems stem from a legitimate
lack of revenue or out-of-control spending?
Quite simply, they cant.
Rep. Linda Flores (R-House District 51), a member of the Government Operations
Oversight Committee, said it well: The business-as-usual and status quo
budget philosophy, knowingly or not, has brought us to our current state of
relative paralysis, inefficiency, lack of accountability, and fiscal instability.
Fortunately, lawmakers dont have to sit back and fret at this state
of affairs. Other states have proven budget reform is possible. Texas legislators,
for example, include program goals, outcomes and strategies in the actual appropriation
bill for their budget. Consider an item appropriated for the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice:
Goal - Incarcerate felons: To provide for confinement, rehabilitation
and reintegration of adult felons.
Outcome:
Escaped offenders as percentage of number of offenders incarcerated
in 2004 - 0% ; 2005 - 0%
Turnover rate of correctional officers in 2004 - 18% ; 2005 - 18%
Strategy - 2.1 Texas Correctional Industries: Prepare the
inmate for reintegration into society by providing the opportunity for on-the-job
training in Texas Correctional Industries.)
(This is one of ten strategies under the goal of incarcerating felons)
Anyone reviewing the Texas budget can see at a glance how much money will
be spent, why it is being spent, and how they will know if it has been spent
effectively. The budget is accessible and transparent.
Oregon lawmakers have at their fingertips all the tools they need to budget
responsibly and restore vital trust in government. Trying to fine-tune the
states tax structure before they do so is putting the cart before the
horse.
Jason Mercier is a budget research analyst for the Washington-state based
Evergreen Freedom Foundation. Marsha Richards is the Foundations communications
director.
Contact: Jason
Mercier | Budget Analyst | 360.956.3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"