Accountable budgeting . . . coming to Washington?
by Bob Williams
For many years, governors of our state and most others have been increasing
the size and cost of government without proper regard to its burden on families
and businesses. The results are predictable: the slightest whiff of economic
trouble and the shaky foundation begins to crumble. Our state now has one
of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, and we’re facing a
$2.5 to $3 billion deficit in the coming biennium. Economic troubles plague
other states as well, but we have been particularly hard hit. Forecasters
tell us we are at least two years—and a slow climb—from recovery.
History lessons
In the early 90s, many states were facing budget problems. Some governors
took strong and decisive action, such as John Engler (Michigan); George
Pataki (New York); Frank Keating (Oklahoma); Zell Miller (Georgia); and
Christine Whitman (New Jersey). These governors not only refused to raise
taxes, they actually cut them. They also seized opportunities that inevitably
arise in a time of crisis to institute much-needed reforms. All of them
were rewarded with re-election.
Fiscal analyst Steve Moore, in an October 2002 study for the American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), wrote, “In sum, the fiscal lessons of the
1990s confirm nearly two decades of academic research. State tax policies
can have a profound impact on the relative economic performance of the states.
States with low and falling tax burdens—especially falling income tax
burdens—outperform states with high and rising tax burdens. Most importantly,
however, states that attempt to balance their budgets with higher tax rates
are likely to lose jobs and businesses and thus create even larger long-term
structural deficits.”
Today, governors around the nation are facing a collective deficit of nearly
$60 billion in the midst of a slowing national economy. Conventional thinking
says lawmakers must look at the existing budget, adjust for inflationary
and caseload increases, and find ways to raise taxes or cut services to
maintain the status quo. But a new budget model announced recently by our
own governor, Gary Locke, rejects conventional thinking and may be one of
the most innovative solutions in the country.
Core government functions
Governor Locke and his budget team started by deciding on ten core functions
for Washington state government, identifying measurable outcomes, and prioritizing
agency programs based on their ability to help achieve those ten functions.
He was aided in this task by a requirement that Washington state agencies
define their core missions and prioritize their programs and budgets accordingly.
Their model was drafted to allocate money within existing resources.
The governor and his team asked four key questions:
1. How much money does the state have?
2. What does the state want to accomplish?
3. What is the most effective way to accomplish the state’s goals within
existing revenue?
4. How can will the state measure its progress toward these goals?
The governor and his staff decided the core functions of government could
be accomplished by meeting the following ten goals:
• Increase student achievement in elementary, middle and high schools.
• Improve the quality and productivity of the workforce.
• Deliver increased value from post-secondary learning.
• Improve the health of Washingtonians.
• Improve the condition of vulnerable children and adults.
• Improve economic vitality of businesses and individuals.
• Improve the mobility of people, goods, information and energy.
• Improve the safety of people and property.
• Improve the quality of Washington’s natural resources.
• Improve the cultural and recreational opportunities through out the
state.
We do not agree with many of the governor’s ten goals for government,
but we are elated with the sensible process his office used to develop them.
They asked the right questions, developed a logical process to determine
the answers and prioritized spending accordingly. They created a new
set of tools that can and should be used by both political parties.
Legislators now have a legitimate place to begin the debate and either ratify
or modify these ten functions. That’s the hard part because once the
legislature has determined the state’s core functions, they will serve
as the litmus test for the hundreds of agencies, boards, commissions and
programs currently funded. If an agency or program is not advancing one
of the agreed-upon core functions of government, it should be eliminated.
Can you just imagine the wailing and anger from currently protected special
interests! The governor and legislators will be pressed hard on all sides
to throw this idea in the dumpster, so they will need a lot of encouragement
from the private sector.
Some Republicans don’t like the model because Democrats came up with
it. Some Democrats are furious with the governor because they think he just
pushed the hard decisions off to them. Others are ready to throw the whole
thing away because they don’t like the ten goals. So change them!
Determining core functions
Core governing functions are not chosen arbitrarily. Legislators should
keep in mind Article 1, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution:
“All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established
to protect and maintain individual rights.” [emphasis added]
The following key questions should be asked about potential core functions
of state government:
1. What should government do, in a broad sense?
2. What should it not do?
3. What essential services are required of government, if it is to successfully
fulfill its proper functions?
Let’s look at two examples of states with clear governing functions.
Arkansas
In 1996, our Foundation worked closely with the Arkansas Murphy Commission
to author a report called The Role and Function of State Government in
Arkansas. One of the report’s opening statements read: “When
government loses sight of its mission, it can lead to serious problems.
Budgets can grow without constraint, workforces can become bloated, spending
can rise unchecked, taxes can continually creep upward, and the quality
of essential services can decline.”
Here are the core functions of state government identified by the Murphy
Commission for Arkansas:
1. To ensure safety.
2. To facilitate the “rule of law” and a system of justice.
3. To assure proper help is provided those individuals who legitimately
cannot meet their own basic human needs.
4. To assure educational opportunity exists for all citizens.
5. To act as a responsible steward of public property and the environment.
Virginia
Another example of clearly-defined core governing functions can be seen
in Virginia. Former Governor George Allen created a Governor’s Commission
on Government Reform, also known as the Blue Ribbon Strike Force. The Strike
Force operated under principles Governor Allen adopted from another influential
Virginian: Thomas Jefferson. Allen liked to quote from Jefferson’s
first Presidential address when he outlined his vision for government:
1. Good government is wise and frugal.
2. Government should restrain individuals from injuring one another.
3. Government should leave the people free to regulate themselves.
4. Government should not take from the mouths of labor the bread it earned.
Conclusion
If the governor and legislators embrace Washington’s new budget tools,
the state will be a pioneer in responsible state budgeting. This model breaks
from the status quo and recognizes a sensible, responsible approach. Throw
in independent, comprehensive performance audits from the state auditor,
and taxpayers may finally have the accountability they’ve justly been
demanding.
Living Liberty is the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's monthly
newsletter. It provides updates on the issues and projects EFF is currently
working on. You will also find commentary on state and sometimes federal
government issues.
Living Liberty is available for our members only. Please click
here if you would like to become a member.
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]?"
Receive Updates · 
