|
|
|
WICHITA —
“Spending is more responsible when the government that spends is the government that must finance that spending.” As an advisor to the late Robert F. Bennett, during his term as Kansas governor, 1975-79, I heard those words spoken often by him.
At the time Governor Bennett was being besieged from two sides. On the one hand he faced a barrage from low-level federal bureaucrats dangling dollars with strings designed to tell him what state government should do and how to do it.
On the other hand, Kansas local officials were demanding that the governor and state lawmakers send a larger portion of state taxes to local coffers.
More recently, the political philosophy underlying Bennett’s words has led to the demise of much revenue sharing and hundreds of categorical grants across the country. Kansas lawmakers eliminated two sizeable revenue sharing programs aiding cities and counties in the aftermath of 9/11, as other states are doing in the current downturn.
Still, in the current year, roughly $1 trillion in taxpayer funds will move from one level of government to another, and often from a second to a third level of government, through countless state and national programs. Huge administrative structures and arcane formulas remain in place to carry out these transfers between governments. Most deficit spending and budget battles today at all levels of government are tied to these transfers.
This behemoth has become incomprehensible to the public breeding cynicism, distrust, and outright anger at government—national, state, and local government.
One of the clearest and most consistent voices on how to tame this beast is Alice Rivlin, founding director of the Congressional Budget Office, co-author of a recent bi-partisan deficit reduction plan, and long-time advisor to Democrats and Republicans, most recently Paul Ryan, who last week released House Republicans’ budget plan.
As lawmakers struggle with unsustainable finances, they would be wise to revisit Rivlin’s radical suggestions of nearly twenty years ago on dividing more clearly the jobs of national and state governments, in her words:
* “Devolution. The federal government should eliminate most of its programs in education, housing, highways, social services, economic development, and job training.
* The productivity agenda. The states should take charge of the primary public investment needed to increase productivity and raise incomes, especially to improve education and skill training and modernize infrastructure.”
Rivlin’s proposed reordering of state and national spending is reminiscent of Bennett’s prescription that spending should be aligned with taxing. Her “productivity agenda” also parallels rhetorically at least Governor Brownback’s “growth agenda” for Kansas. To carry out her plan would call for state and local officials to address their broadened obligations and the revenue requirements associated with removal of federal funding in education, skill training, and infrastructure.
Public disenchantment is challenging as never before the century-long practice of taxing (or borrowing) at one level of government and sending those revenues for another level of government to spend. Aligning spending with taxing offers a guide as national, state, and local lawmakers work to place their respective jurisdictions on a sustainable financial course. This realignment will not happen overnight, but one can hope it will not take another century to complete.
Flentje is a professor at Wichita State University and coauthor of a new book on Kansas politics.
“Spending is more responsible when the government that spends is the government that must finance that spending.” As an advisor to the late Robert F. Bennett, during his term as Kansas governor, 1975-79, I heard those words spoken often by him.
At the time Governor Bennett was being besieged from two sides. On the one hand he faced a barrage from low-level federal bureaucrats dangling dollars with strings designed to tell him what state government should do and how to do it.
On the other hand, Kansas local officials were demanding that the governor and state lawmakers send a larger portion of state taxes to local coffers.
More recently, the political philosophy underlying Bennett’s words has led to the demise of much revenue sharing and hundreds of categorical grants across the country. Kansas lawmakers eliminated two sizeable revenue sharing programs aiding cities and counties in the aftermath of 9/11, as other states are doing in the current downturn.
Still, in the current year, roughly $1 trillion in taxpayer funds will move from one level of government to another, and often from a second to a third level of government, through countless state and national programs. Huge administrative structures and arcane formulas remain in place to carry out these transfers between governments. Most deficit spending and budget battles today at all levels of government are tied to these transfers.
This behemoth has become incomprehensible to the public breeding cynicism, distrust, and outright anger at government—national, state, and local government.
One of the clearest and most consistent voices on how to tame this beast is Alice Rivlin, founding director of the Congressional Budget Office, co-author of a recent bi-partisan deficit reduction plan, and long-time advisor to Democrats and Republicans, most recently Paul Ryan, who last week released House Republicans’ budget plan.
As lawmakers struggle with unsustainable finances, they would be wise to revisit Rivlin’s radical suggestions of nearly twenty years ago on dividing more clearly the jobs of national and state governments, in her words:
* “Devolution. The federal government should eliminate most of its programs in education, housing, highways, social services, economic development, and job training.
* The productivity agenda. The states should take charge of the primary public investment needed to increase productivity and raise incomes, especially to improve education and skill training and modernize infrastructure.”
Rivlin’s proposed reordering of state and national spending is reminiscent of Bennett’s prescription that spending should be aligned with taxing. Her “productivity agenda” also parallels rhetorically at least Governor Brownback’s “growth agenda” for Kansas. To carry out her plan would call for state and local officials to address their broadened obligations and the revenue requirements associated with removal of federal funding in education, skill training, and infrastructure.
Public disenchantment is challenging as never before the century-long practice of taxing (or borrowing) at one level of government and sending those revenues for another level of government to spend. Aligning spending with taxing offers a guide as national, state, and local lawmakers work to place their respective jurisdictions on a sustainable financial course. This realignment will not happen overnight, but one can hope it will not take another century to complete.
Flentje is a professor at Wichita State University and coauthor of a new book on Kansas politics.
