Cutting spending
Few cuts are painless
Published: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 ARTICLE OPTIONS
Gov. Mark Sanford has proposed a state budget that takes the fiscally responsible path, cutting spending with an eye toward preserving the state's essential services.
Sanford's budget would spend $326 million less than lawmakers authorized in the budget for this year. Such spending cuts are necessary. The state doesn't have as much revenue as it did last year, and any downturn in the economy would drive state revenues further down.
The governor pointed out in his budget that the General Assembly has been spending too much over the past few years. State government has been growing too quickly, at a rate the state's economy can't support. Those facts were pointed out by Sanford and others last year, but lawmakers insisted on spending the vast majority of about $1.5 billion in new money.
That overspending exaggerated this year's budget problem, requiring more cuts.
Those cuts are never pleasant. It's easy to declare the budget can be trimmed by eliminating waste and fraud, but there are no lines in the budget marked as waste or fraud. Identifying truly wasted money is difficult, particularly in large enough amounts to make a genuine difference in the overall budget. Usually, one person's waste is another's vital priority.
All budget cuts are likely to be difficult. The governor has suggested saving money by restructuring state agencies, utilizing generic drugs in the state health plan, revising a program to keep retiring employees on the payroll, cutting back the School for the Deaf and the Blind's outreach programs and reversing a $22 million expansion of a state program providing health insurance to low-income children.
He would increase funding for law enforcement, education and higher education. He would add $39 million in Medicaid funding and pay down the state's unfunded liability in its retiree health care plan. All are core responsibilities of the state. What is not a core responsibility is Sanford's proposed $50 million for the Conservation Land Bank.
These may or may not be the places to cut and add spending. They are suggestions that will be considered by lawmakers, but the General Assembly has shown little willingness to follow Sanford's suggestions in the past.
It's not important that lawmakers follow the details of the governor's plan. What is more important is that they follow its overall direction. They should cut spending rather than get through the year by raiding trust funds and spending one-time money on recurring expenses.