|
 |
|
|
|
Chair's Column: Price Matters When Considering Funding of Government Programs |
|
|
|
Written On: May/June 2004 |
|
|
|
Written By: By Mike Bernard - Chair, Board of Directors |
|
|
|
In a recent column on funding for the University of Washington, former Gov. Dan Evans chided people who consistently criticize government. Actually, he called them “whiners and moaners.” The governor was particularly scornful of “... talk show hosts who bleat about government and taxes as if they had never had the benefit of either.”
I think Gov. Evans has a point. And I also think he missed the point.
He's correct when he says that everyone, even the harshest critic, wants and needs some of the things government does. Highways, public safety, and education come to mind. And he's right about voters' natural tendency to want lower taxes and more services — an economic oxymoron. But in his column, the governor talks only about what government can do, not what we can afford to do.
Evans, who also served as Washington’s U.S. Senator, looks at government's potential: Social programs, environmental protection, consumer safeguards, health care, K-12, higher education, help for the poor, tax incentives, child care, infrastructure, job training, police, fire, highways, libraries, the arts, etc. But while Gov. Evans is looking at the potential, employers are looking at the cost; and the harsh reality is that we simply cannot afford to do everything. The money that pays for all those government programs and services comes out of your pocket and mine. I don't know about you, but my pocket does not hold an inexhaustible supply of money.
Which brings me to my point. We cannot afford to do everything, so we must choose — or rather, our elected officials must choose. That's where it gets difficult, because everyone wants something, but they seldom want the same thing. For example, Voter A wants more tax money for public assistance while Voter B says cutting taxes will invigorate the economy and get people off public assistance.
How do you decide? That's where Governor Locke's POG comes in. POG stands for Priorities of Government/Price of Government. It's a process legislators can use to help them make the tough choices. The two names of the POG process are important because it's not just a matter of priorities; it's a matter of price, as well. In fact, price is the starting point. The first thing legislators should determine is what the taxpayers can afford. If lawmakers don’t do that, taxpayers will do it for them, as they did with voter initiatives such as I-601 and I-695.
There are an endless number of things government could do, but there is not an endless supply of money with which to do them. So, like families everywhere, legislators must sit down with their budget and figure out how to get the biggest bang for the buck. They will not be able to do everything, so they must balance priorities with price and decide which are the most critical needs that can be addressed with the money at hand.
This means lawmakers will have to closely scrutinize every program, and in doing so they will inevitably discover duplicated programs and redundant efforts. Eliminating these inefficiencies will make government more affordable and more effective.
What happens if the POG process leaves some deserving programs on the Legislature’s cutting room floor? We should remember that while government is one answer, it is not the only answer. Left with more of their own money, families, volunteers, employers, charities, and communities can address many of those needs.
We all have a legal and ethical obligation to contribute a portion of our income to serve the public good, but only a portion. Just because taxpayers might have a little money left over after taxes is no reason to appropriate it to fund another government program.
We should remind our elected representatives that they need to define both the price and priorities of government — starting with price. If they don’t, the name calling will continue and a truly competitive business environment will continue to elude us.
|
|
|
|
