Jason Mercier & Bob Williams | Evergreen
Freedom Foundation
Just when it appeared that out-going Governor Gary Locke was going to build
his legacy around moving Washington toward priority-based budgets, he seems
to have developed budget amnesia.
While declaring Washington's budget crisis over, Locke failed to mention
the six-year budget forecasts
released just weeks ago by his own budget office and the Senate Ways and
Means Committee, which warn of future multi-billion dollar deficits. With
knowledge of these forecasts, it's difficult to understand why the governor
is running away from his own priorities-of-government (POG) budget model
with his suggestion that Washington increase
spending by $193 million, while practically eliminating all state reserves.
Yet this is exactly what the governor is doing.
Just a year ago Governor Locke received
well-deserved praise for structuring the budget debate around the POG
model. This allowed the state to build a budget around program results (output)
instead of simply looking at increased costs and demands and scrambling
to find more money. By using POG, Washington built the budget much like
hard-working individuals and families do, starting with the question: How
much money is available, and which spending needs are the highest priority?
Rather than continuing this process in the development of his supplemental
budget, the governor decided to see which state accounts and reserves he
could raid to fund increased spending.
With all the budget progress made this past year, the 2003-05 budget still
spends more than forecasted revenue. Locke's supplemental budget nearly
doubles this deficit (to more than $450 million) while leaving reserves
of less than one percent of the budget. With such miniscule reserves, a
natural disaster or downturn in the economy would leave the state staring
at an immediate fiscal crisis.
It is important to remember that every conceivable state program is a priority
for someone. This is why POG develops the budget around the question of
which results can be achieved with the money available rather than how much
money is necessary to buy everything on the wish list. Locke's supplemental
budget focused on the wrong question.
In addition to adding to the state's deficit, Locke's supplemental budget
violates the principles of POG by rewarding poor performance and agency
overspending. For example: While state universities have enrolled more students
than the legislature allocated funding for, this does not mean the governor
should bail them out by increasing their funds. Locke is also increasing
spending for standardized test retakes, which usually amounts to rewarding
the K-12 system for failing to do an adequate job educating students before
they move on to college.
While education is a state priority, the dollars spent do not equate to
meeting this priority. Rather, results achieved should be the measurement.
The governor did not include any performance measures for the increased
funds, such as setting standards for reducing the number of community college
students who must take high school level courses (currently 55% of Washington
high school graduates who enroll in community colleges); reducing the additional
time it takes many students to finish what should be a four-year college
degree; increasing college faculty productivity; increasing K-12 standardized
test scores; etc.
Priorities of Government (POG) is a simple, common sense model. It has
four key steps:
1. Identify available revenue. How much money does the state have?
The governor's supplemental budget increases spending far beyond modest
increases in forecasted revenue.
2. Identify the results that matter most to citizens. What do citizens
need from government? The governor did not answer this question before proposing
new spending.
3. Decide how to allocate limited funds to achieve the state's highest
priorities. How can the state use its resources to deliver the best
results? The governor's original budget listed funded and unfunded priorities,
ranking them from least to most important. The supplemental budget does
not.
4. Show how results can best be delivered. How does the state get
necessary services to citizens as efficiently and effectively as possible?
The governor did not consider options for eliminating waste or increasing
efficiency.
Under the POG model, if the governor decided increased funding was necessary
in some areas for increased caseloads or new programs, he would find a corresponding
reduction in lower priority items to offset the new spending, or would create
savings by delivering services more efficiently. In either case, the budget
would remain balanced. Expenditures would not exceed revenue.
Unfortunately, the governor did not make these necessary decisions. Since
the governor appears to have forgotten how to prioritize spending, it will
now be up to legislators to keep the state on the right fiscal track. Should
legislators fail to do so, Washingtonians will have serious deficits and
looming tax increases to look forward to instead of a responsible government
living within its means.
Jason Mercier is a budget research analyst for the Evergreen Freedom
Foundation, a non-profit public policy research organization dedicated to
individual liberty, free enterprise and accountable government. Bob Williams
is the foundation's President.
Contact: Jason
Mercier | Budget Research 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]?"