Sort of an odd report from Lesley Stedman Weidenbener on Gov. Daniels’ announcement that he would be cutting costs.
Daniels announced that he is taking 50 actions to cut more than $600 million in planned spending . . . [.] Although Daniels announced the 50 actions yesterday, he refused to list all of them and would not provide details, including the amount of cuts to higher education. He said he ordered 3 percent cuts in most agency budgets and in grants, placed additional restrictions on hiring and capital spending, and banned most out-of-state travel.
I’m not saying he’s wrong to make cuts; in fact, he’s almost certainly right. But, as a state citizen, I’d like to know what government services I can expect less of.
The upcoming budget is likely to freeze spending at current levels, and special interests have been urged not to come calling with new spending ideas.
The article closes with an exchange that suggests that Gov. Daniels and Speaker Bauer could take it on the road if this governing thing doesn’t work out for them:
Daniels said that means the state should be able to adjust without turning to a tax increase or dipping into the state’s rainy-day fund.
. . .
But Democrats said they would consider taking money from the savings account if it meant providing adequate funding to schools.“The rainy-day fund is for a rainy day,” Bauer said. “It’s raining.”
It sounds like a near across-the-board cut, but still, to not give some details, or even to explain that there are too many details to give here, refer to the website, or somesuch, is just asking for criticism.
Cuts are good policy when the economy is struggling. It’s genius when done ahead of an economy’s struggles. Like JFK said, the time to fix the roof is before the rain.
Someone called for 5% across-the-board cuts to the state budget when campaigning 3 & 4 years ago.
I can’t address specifically across-the-board tax cuts in Indiana ,but that thinking is what has made government such a mess of under-funded programs merely hanging on in name only. Better to cut whole programs 100%.
It’s always been ironic to me that conservatives are the ones whose favorite M.O. is to make across-the-board tax cuts with no thought to consequences.Tax-cuts-are-always good-and-are-not-relative-to-consequences thinking has in my opinion made goverment increasing ineffective with all programs still exisiting,but underfunded and inefficient.
We need to have the courage to cut whole programs and to bolster others,but that takes evaluation and good faith, and politicians may never arrive at that level. Obama speaks the right language,so let’s see.
Hey, I’m good with cuts to whole programs. The problem with that is that each program has its defenders, and there generally has not been the political will to fight each group head-on. The rationale for across-the-board cuts is that it doesn’t pick favorites. It simply acknowledges the budgetary shortcomings and challenges department chiefs to tighten the belt.
So, Lou, name for us two or three programs in Indiana that are hanging on in name only. I’d like to consider them, if you please.
Mike Kole,
Excellent question! I think what would have to be done is take one program ,such as Indiana Department of Motor vehicles( discussed periodically on this blog) and dissect it.Ive always been for expert advice type examination or what are sometimes called ‘blue ribbon committees’ to assess how things would function better ,and what has to be eliminated,changed or kept..Then enact their recommendations,and everyone shut up.But this is is not democracy,to be sure.
The moment we let any partisan politics get into a solution it’s going to be ideology over substance. On a national level that’s what always scuttles education reform ( get rid of NEA first) or National Health Insurance(it has to be private: no socialism)It’s always ideology that screws us.It never seems to matter if health care is served or if academics are served.Lets use both private and government in creative ways
I have some insights living in France off and on,going to school there and speaking and understanding French. I was always amazed how fast innovation gets down to mainstreet in a so-called socialistic inefficient country,as most Americans think of France.
Most French had their personal cell phones back in the mid 90s when they were still rather rare in states. I could buy gas in France back in 70s from an an otherwise closed gas station at the pump with my credit car..The French railroad system is just unbelievable to behold. 200 mph and the water doesn’t splash in a glass.And amercians so often deride France’s ‘socialism’
It’s not socialism that’s an answer no more than free trade or private control are magic words: simply use what works, after examining the issue by experts in the field.People who understand how railroads work make the decisions and govt enacts them.Education should have major input from those who examine how to teach academics.Isn’t that what education is? Leave local culture to the family.
We could study French education system and incorporate parts of it into our own system. For example:Give parents and students a syllabus of what they must learn in the course and make them totally responsible for mastering the material.. Our public education,even in good schools is too often based on a teacher’s personal grading system,and not on a national syllabus,because there isn’t any.
French education can be very brutal even starting with first graders,and the emphasis is on getting rid of the unfit.American education emphasizes assimilation, and as a result American public education has made us a great nation..so we need to all understand our own motivating ideologies. But knowing our own motivating ideology guides us how to act pragmatically..
So in summary I’ll cop out and say it’s yet to be determined what programs can be eliminated ,but none will ever be totally eliminated if politicians are in charge.But the best innovation is incremental,otherwise we have culture shock and people will dig in their heels.
But thank you so much, Mike, for asking the question. And if my long harangues are inappropriate for this blog,I hope someone in authority will inform me.
Mike
I will disagree on one point you made.Across the-board tax cuts do indeed favor one side: the side that advocates that big government is the problem and that tax cuts make government smaller and more efficient.Mindless across-the- board tax cuts cuts just make government less efficient and what taxes are still collected then are wasted in skeletal programs.Government seems huge to me now and also clueless what to do. And we’ve had years of large tax cuts..
Addressing your point in #5 first. We will disagree here, at least in part. I think that any efficient manager can make due on a 3% budget cut if instructed to. Indeed, the Kole household has had to live on a budget reduced by 40% this year, and we figured out how to do it without feeling like paupers. As one who has worked in county government, what it means is that the new vehicle, computer, and photocopier purchases are delayed one year. In other words, big deal. The structural budget for the things the office is still going to do is intact.
But I do agree that tax cuts in the absence of budget cuts are nearly certain to become budget deficits, the Laffer Curve notwithstanding. The Bush Administration stands as Exhibit ‘A’. A Kole Administration would have worked to cut the budget first, and then once surpluses were evident, tax cuts would have followed. Bush put total faith in the Laffer Curve, cutting taxes while bloating spending.
I completely agree that government is huge and clueless both. That spending made it huge. More revenue won’t make it any smarter, though.
Bottom line for me: When budgets are lean, cut spending ASAP, lest they become the next generation’s obligations. Bush didn’t get that. The Republican Congresses of Bush’s Administration didn’t get that. The Democratic Congress of Bush’s Administration didn’t get it. We are now left hoping the Obama Administration will tame a Democratic Congress.
As for our state, we haven’t substantially cut any spending. We’ve done some holding of the line. We’ve sold assets (I’m not talking about the Toll Road here, but real estate and other items). We’ve done everything we could to avoid cutting. Daniels added a department. We haven’t cut any taxes, so it isn’t a repeat of the Bush mistake of cutting while increasing spending. I think Daniels has a baseline commitment to retaining government in the status quo, despite his ‘Blade’ nickname, but he has a realist view of the budget and the fact that it’s flat. I’m grateful that he will push across-the-board cuts at the very least, rather than move towards deficit spending.