|
The
next person who occupies the Governor’s chair at the statehouse in
Indianapolis
will
inherit a situation that borders on crisis.
The surplus is gone, spending is eclipsing revenues, and
operating cash reserves are dangerously thin.
So why are some candidates and legislators touting new
spending commitments?
The answer, of course, is quite obvious.
They are courting the voters.
Successful politicians have long ago learned that some
messages are best not delivered to the electorate.
The candidate who pledges to freeze, or even roll back, all
existing spending programs and suspend all new ones will be shunned
in favor of the challenger who envisions growth and prosperity.
I call it the paradox of politics.
The people running for office are not stupid.
They know what is, and what is not feasible, for state
government to accomplish in its current fiscal state.
But the fear of delivering an unpleasant truth to the voters
makes them say things that are, well, stupid.
Or, to be more polite, so fuzzy as to be indecipherable.
Take
the proposals to enact strict spending caps on state budgets.
They resonate well with voters who want to see state
|
|
government
live within its means. But
try to pin down a proponent of spending caps on what they imply for
education spending, and things get fuzzy.
Of course, they may say, they are not real cuts, just slower
growth. And of course, they
may add, they are committed to quality education.
Education spending accounts for 57 cents of every dollar of General Fund
expenditures. Simple
arithmetic says you can't enact a meaningful cap on total spending
without cutting -- or slowing the growth, if you will -- spending on
schools and universities. But
the candidate who connects those dots becomes cannon fodder for those
demagogues who equate responsible fiscal management with short-changing
children and selling out the future.
There's another connection that those running for office seldom make out
loud. That's the one between
government efficiency and government jobs.
If, for example, we allowed car dealers to carry out many of the
routine functions of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, should the existing
BMV be left intact? Where is
the cost saving in that? Administrative
costs are dominated by personnel costs, and those costs are only reduced
when jobs are eliminated.
| |
The
same can be said for the now-untouchable issues of procurement and
outsourcing in state government. No
candidate who is serious about improving efficiency and cutting the cost
of state government can truthfully say that an "
Indiana
first"
policy in granting contracts and approving vendors will accomplish those
objectives. Exactly how do
we get a lower cost, higher quality product by making the hurdle that
out-of-state vendors must leap over taller?
It is closer to the truth to say that "made in
Indiana
"
preferences in state procurement are an obstacle to efficiency and cost
control. When a candidate
tells you that he or she will fight to keep state spending within the
state, they are telling you that they value other objectives -- such as
economic development or political patronage -- more than efficiency.
Perhaps we voters all understand that our candidates cannot tell us the
naked truth about such matters, lest they be skewered in the next
day’s headlines. More
frightening is the thought that voters actually believe candidates can
deliver what they promise when it comes to pipe dreams like new spending
commitments or painless spending caps.
Patrick M. Barkey
|
