Six Years As Governor, And Now Perry Wants To Tame Spending

“If I had said it 18 months ago, nobody would have paid attention.”

—Rick Perry on why he’s only now
proposing spending/budget changes.

Before getting into this story, one word about the above statement: Dude, you’re the governor. No matter how much people dislike you and think you’re a MoFo, they do pay attention to what you have to say. And so does the press.

“[D]isingenuous, money-shifting shell games.” That’s what Rick Perry thinks of the state budget. It is somewhat amusing that he’s been governor for 6 years, Lt. Governor before that, Ag Commissioner before that, and a State Rep before that, and he’s just now decided that there’s a problem with the budget.

That “nobody’s listening” approach doesn’t fly, either. He’s just desparate for some kind of publicity in hopes his poll numbers will get off high center.

That’s not likely. Unlike his 2002 campaign promises (tort reform, the Trans Texas Corridor, etc.), this is not exactly something that the average Texan understands. “What the Hell’s the state spending cap?” “Who cares? Have another Keystone Lite.”
Of course, I’m going to tell you all about Perry’s ‘plan.’ Here are the main points:

•Requiring that dedicated funds be refunded if they’re not used as intended.

•Amending the Texas Constitution to allow the state to return surplus revenue to taxpayers.

•Setting a tighter spending limit on state government that is tied more to population growth and inflation than to personal income.

•Requiring all state agencies to publish expenditures online in a clear, concise and consistent format.

•Requiring detailed budget line items instead of lump-sum line items.

There is so much wrong with this that I don’t know where to begin. So, I’ll take them one by one.

Requiring that dedicated funds be refunded if they’re not used as intended. Uh, refunded to whom? The taxpayer? The general fund? This doesn’t take into account things like an agency saving a little in its budget one biennium to combine with a little from the next biennium to complete a major project. It also seems to me as though this would seriously hamper health and human services and eventually cause the loss of a lot of federal matching funds—if HHS ends up every carrying over funds of that nature.

Amending the Texas Constitution to allow the state to return surplus revenue to taxpayers. I’m sorry, but just how in the hell are you going to do that? Texas has no income tax, only regressive taxes like sales tax, fuel taxes and cigarette taxes. Are people supposed to save their sales tax receipts for five years at a time so that, in the event of the necessity of a refund, we can ship boxes of receipts to the comptroller of public accounts to claim those refunds? Furthermore, since we’re even spending the “rainy day fund” most of the time, the reality that there would ever be a refund is about as likely as Perry’s hair actually showing movement in a strong wind.

Oh, wait! I know! That’s a refund for the rich. It’s a refund for major corporations who pay various and sundry taxes. They’ll be the “taxpayers” that get the refund, right? Not the average Joe who’s just paying sales tax.

Setting a tighter spending limit on state government that is tied more to population growth and inflation than to personal income. While we’re at it, let’s abolish the legislature, cede all of Texas north of Waco to Oklahoma, privitize all of whatever government is left, and hire Jesse Ventura and Bob Perry to run the whole damned thing. We’ve had the present spending cap for a number of years, and I don’t think it’s done us a disservice yet.

This is a hyperactive, Grover Norquist proposal, plain and simple. This is one of the “drown government in a bathtub” ideas that have never worked anywhere they’ve been tried with any significant success. This will result in less money to run the state government which, let’s face it, funds most programs at levels the other 49 states (excluding Mississippi, I’m sure) would scoff at.

Texas is the third most populous state in the nation. We already choke health and human services and other areas of government; going to a system like this would result in terrible financial crisis.

Requiring all state agencies to publish expenditures online in a clear, concise and consistent format. I don’t even think legislation would be required to make this happen. Does he not realize that via executive order and the stroke of a pen, he could have done this six years ago?

Requiring detailed budget line items instead of lump-sum line items. Oh, yes. That’s an amusing one. Does Rick Perry not realize that some people in the Lege like, oh, I don’t know, those on the Appropriations Committee actually do see detailed budget line items? After all, if they didn’t, how would they know how many kids to kick off child health insurance?

Second, in the climate of the Texas Legislature, I can see about 18 special sessions to pass one budget with a true line-item budget like Perry is talking about. I can so see someone standing up and asking why the Public Utility Commission is spending so much on office supplies, or worse, someone objecting to the fact that the Texas Department of Health will spend how much to produce a video on breastfeeding for the WIC program. Or something. God knows, some of the state budget probably, either through a grant or through TDH, probably also goes to funding “reproductive planning,” and some eager beaver legislator would just love to find the line item that pays for condoms and stage a 10-day fillibuster.

This could actually put the budget in a dangerous place: one where it can be cut at random and at the lowest possible category so that certain programs can be eleminated simply so lawmakers don’t like them.

Truth In Spending
Of course, the governor gives the initiative a fancy name, the “Truth in Spending” initiative.

He evidently hasn’t noticed that we already have the “truth in taxation” initiative, and that conservatives bitch because it’s not as truthful as it should be when it comes to publishing tax rates at the local level.

The Upside

There is one upside to this: Perry has given Chris Bell something to attack. Hopefully, he’ll get a couple dozen policy wonks in a room very soon, rip this proposal a new one, and then tell people in layman’s terms why it sucks.

That, and if this is the best Rick Perry can do (and I kind of think this *might* have been their silver bullet since it was unvieled at the Hotel InterContinental) he’s screwed.

Bookmark It