|
Whether
politicians like it or not, the electorate decides
some unsettled questions whenever there is a
contested election. This year, circumstances will
force the gubernatorial candidates and all other
candidates running for state office to address the
related issues of state spending and taxation.
One reason is that the enormous budget surplus of
approximately $2.2 billion accumulated during the
current biennium, will be appropriated at the 2006
session of the General Assembly. Politicians cannot
resist the temptation to carve up such a big prize.
I understand the cynicism of my friend Barnie Day (See
"Wake Up and Smell the
Coffee," Oct. 17, 2005). I share his
frustration over the kind of partisan politics we've
seen in Richmond, but I also see the value of
politics even when it isn't practiced purely.
Politics is absolutely essential in a free,
self-governing society. It is the crude way we link
the people and their elected representatives in
Virginia. Without that political process, we would
have either chaos or authoritarian rule.
Until the elections are held, no one can say with
assurance whether Democrats or Republicans will
control the House of Delegates. Virginians may have
a Kilgore administration or a Kaine administration
come January 2006. Whichever political party
prevails, the problems confronting the commonwealth
will be the same.
Many issues will be discussed before the 2005
elections are concluded, but the one that will
override all others is what to do with our $2.2
billion surplus. The issue is not as straightforward
as it seems. For example, the next governor and
General Assembly may decide to treat this surplus
not as a one-time windfall, but rather as a
permanent, incremental increase in state revenues.
As I argued in my last column, it will be difficult
at the next session for some politicians to resist
making long-term "commitments" to new and
expanded state programs. If that sentiment prevails,
the General Assembly will exacerbate the
"structural deficit" that Gov. Mark Warner
complained about throughout his 2001 gubernatorial
campaign.
Let me repeat my thesis: There can be no such
"structural deficit" under the Virginia
Constitution. Unfortunately, our politicians hide
behind the fiction of long-term spending commitments
to avoid the difficult tasks of making state
government less wasteful and setting responsible
spending priorities. Those priorities necessarily
change from time to time and require regular
adjustment.
The national government is on automatic pilot
precisely because Congress and the president do not
re-examine spending priorities periodically. Is it
any wonder voters feel that the federal budget is
out of control?
Before our state budget process comes to resemble
the federal budget process, Virginians should insist
that their elected officials at least acknowledge
the difference between the two. When discussion of
the state budget begins with the recognition that
legislators have no constitutional power to create
binding commitments to fund state programs beyond
21/2 years of the end of a legislative session, they
might abandon talk of long-term spending
commitments. They might even begin to adopt
reasonably conservative revenue forecasts and feel
some political pressure to make hard budget
decisions in the name of true fiscal discipline.
Every good manager knows that the time to establish
financial controls is when the enterprise is under
control, not when it is in crisis. That lesson
should guide the new governor and the next General
Assembly as they decide on the next biennial budget.
When elected officials seem to have no capacity to
restrain themselves, the voters have three choices.
They can ignore that behavior. They can refuse to
re-elect those elected officials. Or they can amend
the Virginia Constitution to impose the restraints
that their elected officials refuse to impose on
themselves.
--
October 17, 2005
|
