You may have read with interest the many news stories about a $750 million dollar "surplus" in our state coffers. I was very interested in this, as well. To that end, I spent a good deal of time this summer exploring our budget history and the various "techniques" (read: gimmicks) used by prior legislative bodies before my time. Dismayed is not a strong enough word to describe how our Budget Reform Working Group felt when we went through page after page of accounting tricks previously used to create what you all would believe to be a balanced budget.
As you know, a balanced budget is required in Arizona, and state debt cannot exceed $350,000 by our constitutional law. News flash, folks... We have routinely ignored both through a series of accounting tricks and the creation of new words to describe what would, by anyone's estimation, be considered "debt" in a real household. I believe it is time we get real with how we handle your money down at the capitol, and anything left that we don't absolutely need should be yours to keep. I would like to reduce your personal income taxes and let you decide what to do with the money you earn, if it is truly above what is needed to provide basic government services.
You may wonder what this has to do with the surplus. Fair enough. Let's look specifically at one gimmick used last year that helped to create an appearance of a surplus. Ever heard of a "fund sweep?" This is a process by where you pay a fee for a specific purpose, to support a specific function of government, but in order to make our books look better we have to transfer or "sweep" the fees paid by you all into the general fund. Essentially, this is legal but probably not all that ethical in the long run. This practice leaves the agency or fund low, sometimes triggering fee increases to you all but always leaving the fund in a predicament of how to continue to offer the services you paid for with your fees. Ever heard of the State Highway Fund? Probably not. But, you have probably driven on roads in the state that are built and maintained with money in this fund that is partially funded through the Vehicle License Tax fund, which was robbed of $118,000,000.00 last year. That's right... The state took $118 million designated for roads, put it in the state's coffers and then announces it has a "surplus" of revenues. If you live in an area that needs road improvement, this should really hit home with you.
When we sweep funds to create a better bottom line in the general fund, we have essentially tricked the system into looking like we have a surplus when the tax revenues roll in beyond our expectations. However, we still need to pay back the "sweep" in order to hold these agencies and funds (and by extension, the taxpayers who utilize those services) harmless in the long run. I am about to disclose some raw data that may seem shocking, so turn away if government deception is nauseating to you... Our total fund sweeps, starting in 2002 through last year totaled $545,817,600.00.
Then, there are other gimmicks like the use of "Contracts of Purchase" which would be considered something like a mortgage in your real world. In government world? They are nothing more than a paper agreement and therefore we conveniently don't call them "debt"... even though they are committing future revenues to pay for goodies we just couldn't wait for. I heard a number the other day about this outstanding debt-that-we-can't-legally-call-debt and it was in the hundreds of millions (far beyond the afore-mentioned $350 thousand limit set in our constitution). So, if we are honest about that surplus, we would have to immediately reduce it by the amount we "borrowed" from around the state and by these outstanding amounts, right?
You see, the "surplus" is not extra money above what it costs to maintain your state government at current levels. Rather, it is the amount of tax revenue that came in above what we had expected when we created the budget. By use of various methods of debt (the governor likes to just skip payments or "take holidays" from them, which sounds so much nicer), we make our budget look balanced. Simply not paying your bills and then having money left over when you get your next paycheck would never be considered a "surplus" in your home, would it? No. And I don't believe you can look at our state budgeting process any differently, if you are to be intellectually honest.
True, it's not that much fun at home to get a bonus then have to spend it on credit card bills. We kind of feel the same down at the capitol. But, that is called being responsible adults. Bummer.
Friday, December 9, 2005
Monday, October 31, 2005
Representative Gorman joins Heartland Institute Advisory Board
State Representative Pamela Gorman (R-6) has accepted a position on the Legislative Advisory Board of The Heartland Institute, a 21-year-old national nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank headquartered in Chicago Illinois.
Rep. Gorman will advise Heartland on topics to address and serve as a source for the think tank’s scholars and reporters. Heartland Legislative Advisors also submit essays and news reports for Heartland publications, meet with counterparts from other states at seminars and conferences, and receive priority treatment of their research requests.
“I am honored to be able to represent the concerns of my constituents by working with The Heartland Institute and my colleagues from other states,” Rep. Gorman said. For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit its Web site at www.heartland.org.
Rep. Gorman will advise Heartland on topics to address and serve as a source for the think tank’s scholars and reporters. Heartland Legislative Advisors also submit essays and news reports for Heartland publications, meet with counterparts from other states at seminars and conferences, and receive priority treatment of their research requests.
“I am honored to be able to represent the concerns of my constituents by working with The Heartland Institute and my colleagues from other states,” Rep. Gorman said. For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit its Web site at www.heartland.org.
Thursday, June 2, 2005
Portable Power
There are generally two competing ideas on how centralized or localized our government should be. The "left" likes things centralized and the "right" prefers things are handled locally. If you have spent any time reading here, you may have surmised that I am to the right on most (if not all) issues. This one is no different.
When you move towards centralizing government, it means you are essentially placing more and more of the decision making power in the hands of a small group of folks at the top. When you localize government, you are diversifying and delegating that decision-making to the smaller local jurisdictions (i.e. city councils, county governments, school districts, etc.).
When the decision making is local, the average citizen has a great amount of input and the potential for impact on those decisions. Also, there are a whole lot more minds working on the problems and the solutions are locally based and specific for a community. When the decision making is centralized, there are only a handful of people making decisions who can't possibly spread themselves around to all of the citizens whose lives are affected by their decisions at the top. The biggest problem I see with this, though, is the idea that only a few folks hold the reigns for the whole population. That leaves an awful lot of power in those hands and creates a real risk for abuse and/or simply stupid ideas being thrust upon the common man.
It may seem like a good idea to let one or two key people who are known to be moral, honorable, intelligent, and magnanimous to come up with solutions to all of society's ills. After all, their decision making would be quality and therefore good. The problem is, that if you do centralize to these good folks, the power you have given them is huge and they can easily be replaced by folks who are not as good either personally or professionally. This is what I like to call "portable power." Once all of the decision-making power is bundled up to the central authority, and none of the messy local decision-making any longer encumbers the process, it becomes a real danger for the population that sits under that central authority. There could come a time when people of ill repute manage to seize that power and then all of the decisions for all of our lives will be made by these ill-equipped or ill-mannered new leaders.
So, when you hear people say that the state should be in charge of something through some new state office, be wary. One size does not fit all in Arizona's varied communities. But, more importantly, you will be at the mercy of the quality and the agenda of the person appointed to that state office. Today's appointment might be brilliant and good. The next replacement, however, could be a disaster. If the power is made portable through centralization, we would be at the mercy of the new power keepers in one swift shift of personnel. Portable power is dangerous. A bad local decision affects a few people. A bad statewide decision affects us all.
When you move towards centralizing government, it means you are essentially placing more and more of the decision making power in the hands of a small group of folks at the top. When you localize government, you are diversifying and delegating that decision-making to the smaller local jurisdictions (i.e. city councils, county governments, school districts, etc.).
When the decision making is local, the average citizen has a great amount of input and the potential for impact on those decisions. Also, there are a whole lot more minds working on the problems and the solutions are locally based and specific for a community. When the decision making is centralized, there are only a handful of people making decisions who can't possibly spread themselves around to all of the citizens whose lives are affected by their decisions at the top. The biggest problem I see with this, though, is the idea that only a few folks hold the reigns for the whole population. That leaves an awful lot of power in those hands and creates a real risk for abuse and/or simply stupid ideas being thrust upon the common man.
It may seem like a good idea to let one or two key people who are known to be moral, honorable, intelligent, and magnanimous to come up with solutions to all of society's ills. After all, their decision making would be quality and therefore good. The problem is, that if you do centralize to these good folks, the power you have given them is huge and they can easily be replaced by folks who are not as good either personally or professionally. This is what I like to call "portable power." Once all of the decision-making power is bundled up to the central authority, and none of the messy local decision-making any longer encumbers the process, it becomes a real danger for the population that sits under that central authority. There could come a time when people of ill repute manage to seize that power and then all of the decisions for all of our lives will be made by these ill-equipped or ill-mannered new leaders.
So, when you hear people say that the state should be in charge of something through some new state office, be wary. One size does not fit all in Arizona's varied communities. But, more importantly, you will be at the mercy of the quality and the agenda of the person appointed to that state office. Today's appointment might be brilliant and good. The next replacement, however, could be a disaster. If the power is made portable through centralization, we would be at the mercy of the new power keepers in one swift shift of personnel. Portable power is dangerous. A bad local decision affects a few people. A bad statewide decision affects us all.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Say "NO" to a balanced budget? What?!
I sat in disbelief as I watched a bill go down that would have made it illegal for the legislature to pass an unbalanced budget. The bill was actually not a normal bill, it was a referendum. This means that if successful in the house and senate, then it would be up to the voters to decide at the next election if they wanted to approve this new law. And, this bill had lost before and was up for a reconsideration. So, to lose a second time meant it was deep dead. Gone until next year at the earliest.
The reason this bill was being reconsidered was because many people had "said" they voted against it the first time around out of confusion. They said they thought it was TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights), which is arguably one of the most aggressive pieces of fiscally conservative legislation out there these days. In actuality, though, this bill was all of the really obviously good things about TABOR without all of the "out there" super conservative stuff. So, someone made a motion to hear it again. Naturally, everyone expected it to pass the second time now that everyone understood that this was more of a "TABOR-lite" (my own pet term for it).
In other words, this was a very reasonable piece of legislation that the voters should have had a chance to vote on. I was shocked to see that we couldn't find 31 Republicans willing to even give the voters the chance to insist we give them a balanced budget. What is so bad about letting the voters choose to have a balanced budget?! Shocking. Discouraging. Sad. Borderline disgusting, to be honest.
The reason this bill was being reconsidered was because many people had "said" they voted against it the first time around out of confusion. They said they thought it was TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights), which is arguably one of the most aggressive pieces of fiscally conservative legislation out there these days. In actuality, though, this bill was all of the really obviously good things about TABOR without all of the "out there" super conservative stuff. So, someone made a motion to hear it again. Naturally, everyone expected it to pass the second time now that everyone understood that this was more of a "TABOR-lite" (my own pet term for it).
In other words, this was a very reasonable piece of legislation that the voters should have had a chance to vote on. I was shocked to see that we couldn't find 31 Republicans willing to even give the voters the chance to insist we give them a balanced budget. What is so bad about letting the voters choose to have a balanced budget?! Shocking. Discouraging. Sad. Borderline disgusting, to be honest.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Making a Difference
Today we heard a variety of bills in our Appropriations committee. It was refreshing to hear two bills that had already been amended to remove tax increases before we were asked to vote on them in our committee. In some small way, I sensed that there is a mood emerging where it is evident that bills will have trouble making it through if they are asking for tax increases. That is great for all of us who pay those taxes!
I think people would be surprised to hear all of the different ways people, who are total strangers to you, approach us and ask us for access to your billfold. Sometimes it is quite creative, and ALWAYS is accompanied by a "sky is falling" warning of what will happen if we don't crack open your wallet just a little further.
I think people would be surprised to hear all of the different ways people, who are total strangers to you, approach us and ask us for access to your billfold. Sometimes it is quite creative, and ALWAYS is accompanied by a "sky is falling" warning of what will happen if we don't crack open your wallet just a little further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
