State needs to keep its priorities straight

Summer is here. For most of us that means travel, fun and a well-earned sunburn or two.

For legislative candidates, summer is the kick-off for campaign season.

While you and I might grow bleary-eyed at the thought (and believe me, I do), the state elections in November likely will affect our lives more tangibly than the presidential race.

The Legislature has broad law-making powers — “plenary” as our Supreme Court has ruled — despite what our state constitution says.

Though we might prefer to be left alone with our summer fun (and believe me, I would) the legislative candidates we elect in November will affect this and many other aspects of our lives.

For example, this session the Legislature passed an extremely comprehensive climate change bill that, in effect, grants the state the power to tell us where we will work, where we will live, what size vehicle we will drive and how much electricity we will use.

The Legislature also passed a bill requiring the 13 goals of the Growth Management Act (or the No Growth, No Property Rights Act as I like to call it) to be viewed in light of climate change.

What exactly does that mean and what are the economic consequences? Your guess is as good as mine.

The Legislature can’t tell us, but it sure looked good on paper.

Legislative meddling in our lives doesn’t stop there. In 2007, legislators passed a law that placed a moratorium on building new coal plants and forbade purchasing power from any facility that pumps out more emissions than a natural gas-fueled plant.

The law caused the rejection of a $1.5 billion coal-gasification power plant submitted by Energy Northwest, despite our state’s growing energy needs. Rejections of this kind could result in price increases and even blackouts.

Of course, there are legislators who voted against these and other economically suspect bills, but they are outnumbered.

Even many well-meaning legislators are stumped on what to do about problems like the budget deficit.

The good news is that there is a solution, and the best part is that it requires no tax increases.

It’s called Priorities of Government (POG). We’ve been talking about it for years. If you were a Washington resident when Gov. Gary Locke was in office, you’ll probably remember it.

Washington became a poster child for the budget revolution in 2003. Facing a potential budget shortfall of more than $2 billion and realizing that tax increases were politically unacceptable, Locke and his staff used the POG approach to pull our state out of the red ink.

Lawmakers passed a balanced budget within existing priorities and without drastic cuts. Amazing what a little prioritization will do.

So how does the POG approach differ from conventional thinking? Conventional thinking says lawmakers must adjust the current budget for inflation, add caseload increases, splice in a few new initiatives, and call it good for another legislative session.

This is exactly the approach that got us into the $2.5 billion hole we face today.

If revenue drops, the same conventional thinking allows for three budget balancing options: 1) raise taxes; 2) cut important services; or, 3) a combination of both.

When budgets are built in this manner, without deliberative efforts to develop core governing principles first, legislators become “enablers” for agencies and programs that likely have fundamental design flaws, or that may be providing services in direct conflict with lawmakers’ policy values.

Even when agencies or programs “accidentally” comply with what lawmakers would choose as their core governing principles, building budgets the conventional way virtually guarantees an upward spending spiral.

The POG approach asks the right questions, provides a logical process for determining the answers and prioritizes spending accordingly.

It provides a sensible place to begin meaningful debate by asking four basic questions:

1. How much money does the state have?

2. What does the state want to accomplish?

3. How will the state measure its progress in accomplishing those goals?

4. What is the most effective way to accomplish the state’s goals with the money available?

Cash-strapped states like Washington will find that the POG process greatly increases spending efficiency and economy. But for a model like POG to work, it must be applied to the entire budget, not only the carefully selected, politically manageable portions.

If, in addition to the POG process, independent, comprehensive performance audits are part of the normal legislative procedure, accountability to taxpayers can be more readily assured.

When deciding the core functions of government, the following questions should be asked:

• Is this a proper function of government, or is it best left to the individual (family) or charitable organization?

• If intervention is necessary, is it best left to local government which is closer to the people?

• Does it further increase taxes, regulations or the size of government? If so, is this justified?

Many lawmakers are unwilling to determine core functions of government because 1) it is hard work and may take years to get right; 2) fierce philosophical battles must be waged with the end result being a compromise that may please no one; and, 3) most lobbyists and other special interests hate it (because it’s new and less pliable once adopted).

Still, the ultimate responsibility of lawmakers is to look taxpayers in the eye and honestly report to them that government is functioning excellently within its boundaries and its means.

Starting the governing process with sound core principles makes this possible.

Amber Gunn is the director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Economic Policy Center.

• Civil
• Smart
• On-topic
• Free from profanity

We ask that all participants own their words by registering for an account. It's a simple process that will take seconds and helps keep our comments free of trolls, cranks, and drive-by commenters.

As a community site, we ask that the community help by using the "Flag" button on each comment if they feel the comment has violated the rules. You can also use the up and down arrows on each comment to voice your opinion about that particular comment.

Want to tell us something but you don't want it to be public? Talk to us privately.