Defining
Core Functions
There's
a simple criteria for deciding if a government
program is essential: What adverse consequences
would occur if the state shut it down?
As
Gov. Mark Warner and members of the General Assembly
work toward a solution to the Commonwealth's ongoing
budget problems, they have not bothered to define a
phrase they all use – "core functions."
Exactly what are the core functions of state
government?
What we're likely
to learn is that everyone defines the phrase
differently. It's time to find out how large
those differences are.
The exercise in
identifying the essential business of state
government should be the first order of business in
budget-making. Let's have a candid debate
about the role of government. Let's put aside
our preconceived ideas and take a hard look at the
question.
If there is any
good to come from a huge budget deficit, it is that
we are forced to rethink what we have too casually
accepted as a given in the past. The state
budget is chock-full of untested assumptions.
Programs take on a sense of permanence in part
because it's hard work to rethink questions we've
previously settled and in part because there are
political risks in doing so.
During the most
thorough rethinking of Virginia state government,
which occurred in 1973-1978, a useful test was
developed. Governors and legislators were
urged to ask a simple question in the budget
process: What unacceptable consequences would
occur if state government failed to continue a
particular program? Such a question prompts
serious consideration of the relationship between
government and society, between state government and
the national government, and between state
government and local government.
A considerable part
of the Virginia state budget is affected, directly
or indirectly, by federal legislation. This is
particularly true in the areas of education and
health. Federal mandates in these areas are
not accompanied by full federal funding.
State officials are
under enormous political pressure to accept federal
funding that covers only a small portion of total
program cost and even though the federal funding
usually comes with heavy-handed federal control of
the program. Remember the torrent of criticism
that former Gov. George Allen received for initially
refusing to accept $8 million in federal education
funding because it came with strings that Allen
considered unacceptable? None of his critics
bothered to address the fact that the federal
conditions would force on state and local taxpayers
far more than $8 million in additional construction
costs for schools.
Gov. Warner has
shown a willingness to engage in the kind of
rethinking of programs that is needed. For
example, he has proposed changing the way we handle
the provision of some mental health services.
Under his approach, local governments would play a
larger role.
It may be heresy,
but we should challenge the Standards of Quality for
public education. The mere fact that the
General Assembly has not fully funded these
standards is accepted by some as proof that Virginia
is shortchanging its public school children.
The linkage between these standards and actual
educational performance is highly debatable.
We should reexamine not only the justification for
the current Standards of Quality, but also the
state's general role in public education.
Only governments
and monopolies resist this kind of rigorous
analysis. Businesses in competitive
circumstances must constantly rethink their core
functions, present practices, and operating
assumptions. Powerful interest groups that
benefit from ongoing government programs fight tooth
and nail against any reexamination of those
programs.
Let's get on with
the budget debate, but let's insist that our elected
officials tell us what they think state government's
core functions are.
--
January 20, 2003
|
