Barnie,
you were in detention for not finishing your
homework when I tried to reach you a week ago. (See
"Hither the Surplus?")
I was hoping to talk to you about your criticism of
my suggestion that politicians stop talking about
long-term spending commitments because that phrase
is a smokescreen.
When you finish your homework assignment on the
Virginia Constitution, you'll know that our elected
state representatives can't commit public funds for
more than two years at a time. Unlike their
counterparts in Congress who have made most of the
federal budget "uncontrollable," our
legislators in Richmond are constitutionally
obligated to set spending priorities every two
years.
That's a good thing. We have a wonderful tradition
here in Virginia of leaving voters and taxpayers in
control. There was even a revolution about that, as
I recall, but that's the next homework assignment.
Virginia voters have the opportunity to change
direction through elections. One set of elected
officials can't put those who may follow in a
straitjacket. That is a prerequisite of a republican
form of government.
If taxpayers surrender control over spending by
accepting rigid formulas that dictate future
spending, they might as well give control to a
distant potentate. The result would be the same.
Our lawmakers have enacted laws that, on their face,
seem to put spending for many functions of state
government, such as public education, on automatic
pilot. Powerful interest groups strive to lock in
"permanent" taxpayer funding for their pet
programs at pre-established levels. That's not good
for Virginia taxpayers.
Most legislators prefer not to evaluate how money is
spent on state programs every two years. They prefer
to enact spending formulas that deflect attention
from themselves. "Blame the Standards of
Quality, not your elected representatives,"
they seem to say.
Having a spending formula for just about every state
program allows liberals to claim at election time or
whenever they propose a tax increase that state
revenues are not keeping pace with the
commonwealth's "commitments." Never mind
that the assumptions on which these formulas were
initially based are no longer valid (and, perhaps,
never were). Instead of undertaking the painful
political task of re-evaluation, many legislators
have chosen instead to raise taxes so that our
"commitments" can be honored.
Even if long-term spending commitments made for good
public policy, they aren't constitutional in
Virginia. You could try to amend the state
constitution to make them legitimate. Until that
happens, let's obey the state's fundamental law.
There is another, more troubling aspect to your
column. You claim that public investment in
"societal infrastructure" is what spurs
growth in the private sector. There appears to be no
limit to what that term encompasses. Government is
inefficient, as you concede. Yet, you want
government to fund "education, transportation,
health care, research, law enforcement, the
environment, and on and on and on."
Our elected officials often talk about the
commonwealth's "core functions" without
detailing what they are. Under your definition,
there is very little that wouldn't be a "core
function" of state government.
Here's another homework assignment. Was it the
public or the private sector that initially provided
Virginia's highway, canal and rail systems? I'll
give you a clue: The state didn't have a Department
of Transportation until long after 1776.
Proclaiming, as you do, that government must assume
responsibility for virtually all of our wants and
needs makes you sound like a socialist. That was
once a powerful epithet in Virginia. Perhaps, no
more.
Whatever happened to freedom? Patrick Henry didn't
say: "Give me security or give me death."
As I recall my homework assignment, he said:
"Give me liberty or give me death."
--
October
17, 2005
|