A couple of weeks ago, in response to some outrageous statement about the state budget put out by someone over at the Policy Council via Twitter — I forget now who it was, or what it was he or she said, but I think it was something like “this is the biggest budget ever” — I got worked up enough to go out and get some numbers showing what total nonsense that was. Because I knew we hadn’t caught up to pre-crash spending levels.
And I got the numbers, covering the last few years. And there were supporting documents, which are hard to link on WordPress (I usually go back and use TypePad on my old blog to link a file, then copy the code over here, which is tedious), and then there was the post itself to write talking about the numbers, and somewhere in the middle of it I fell asleep or something.
Oh, wait, I know — I sent Ashley Landess a Tweet asking her something about the numbers they had used, and while she answered my initial question, she didn’t (unless I missed it) answer a follow-up, and I used waiting for that response as an excuse to just let the whole thing drift, because I had satisfied my own curiosity and justified my own outrage (this is not, of course, the biggest budget ever), and it’s hard for me to maintain interest in numbers for very long. (By the way, I’m not blaming Ashley for not answering me a second time. In fact, maybe she did and it got lost in the ether. Nobody can watch that stuff all day, or read all of it, even when alerted to it.)
Then, a few days ago, Doug got on this kick of throwing HIS favorite numbers at us (similar to the Policy Council numbers, including federal spending and probably lottery money and the kitchen sink and all kinds of stuff that the Legislature has no control over, even though what we were talking about was the budget the Legislature was voting on), and did his usual thing of “Where are YOUR numbers?” and thumping his chest and all, and I thought about going back and digging up the real numbers and answering him, but I was then filled with ennui, because I knew it wouldn’t make any difference, and I just wasn’t interested enough.
Because I know how bogus the whole conversation is. I experience state government. I follow what’s happening. I see the cuts, year after year. After all, we have 8,000 fewer state employees than in 1994, as Cindi Scoppe notes today (see, I just threw number at you, but I didn’t have to spend time digging them up, which is what matters to me)…
In fact, that is my purpose in posting on this subject. Cindi never gets bored looking at the budget, and she understands it better than most people, certainly better than most of the people who get to vote on it. Consider her an enabler of my fecklessness on the subject. I had her to worry about the budget for me for most of 22 years.
And she’s still doing it. In her column headlined “The fable of the spendthrift Legislature,” she summed it up pretty well. (It would have been a wonder if she hadn’t. The freaking thing was 30 inches long. But as I told her, “It read like 18.” Old editor joke.)
It’s worth a read. It puts things into perspective. It explains why it’s so bogus for Nikki Haley to perpetuate the myth (as did Mark Sanford) that the lawmakers are a bunch of spendthrifts out there “growing government” at a rate that exceeds the kind of bogus arbitrary caps that those two governors AND House leaders are always on about.
By the way, while the Senate won’t go along with arbitrary caps (thank goodness; they still believe in representative democracy instead of government by formula), in recent years we’ve stayed well within that population-plus-inflation formulation. The average annual increase in the general fund has been 2.4 percent since 1994 (the year the Republicans took over), including the non-recurring portion. The recurring part has grown by 1.8 percent a year.
And lawmakers are still appropriating less than they did five years ago. So these are not the biggest budgets ever.
Man, this is boring…
Related Posts
You’re telling me…
I read that and still don’t know what you were getting at. So the budget grows 2.4% every year since 1994, but the legislature is spending less than they were 5 years ago. Huh??? By God, we’ve got a surplus!!!
You sure you’ve never been a politician?
Steven, in FY 2008-09, the budget was cut by 20.8 percent. I think — the figures I’m looking at MIGHT be what passed the House, rather than the final budget. In any case, there were huge cuts that year.
So we have a ways to go to get back to where we were. And that’s in unadjusted dollars.
If you consider inflation, to get back to the spending levels of 2007, you’d have to add a couple of billion to the present $5.9 billion budget.
“It’s a cap that would make sense — as a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule — in a state that already was providing the services that it needs to provide. This never has been such a state, and it certainly isn’t now, as we’re still reeling from recession-induced budget cuts.”
Except that I don’t agree that a cap ever makes sense–you’re right–government by formula is an abdication of judgment by the legislature.
I just wish many more of the fine voters of SC could experience what it is like to live somewhere where people pay a little bit more in tax and get so much more back–when we pull together, we can do so much more!
A fallacy to this cap nonsense is that different elements of the population are growing at different rates. One of the faster growing segments is those who are 65 and older, and the fastest is those who are 85 and older.
So if we have a cap, should greater financial emphasis automatically go to the faster growing components? (This line of thought is sort of like the census, which adds and subtracts congressional districts from states based on their population figures.)
Clearly our state is not (and neither is the country) truely prepared for a world where 10,000 Americans sign up for Social Security EACH DAY. (It would be about 80 a day here in SC.) Think of all those aging baby boomers stuck out in those brick ranch houses in the Lexington and NE suburbs that no one seems to want to buy anymore. Now think about all of them gradually turning in their car keys (or worse, trying to gut it out along I20 and I26 to the pharmacy or the doctor or the grocery store).
Yes, a cap is an abdication of judgment, and of common sense.
Warren Buffett says all Americans won the big lottery of the womb, and we all ought to pay adequate taxes to arrest the crumbling infrastructure, refocus our education system, and provide the necessities for the people the American free enterprise system has marginalized.
BTW, we ought to begin by forcing Ken Ard out of office for bald-faced lying to the Ethics Commission. At least Mark Sanford manned up and confessed fully to his sins — while Ken claimed a 10-minute family trip to Senator Graham’s office to pick up VIP white house tour tickets was a meeting with SC’s senior senator to discuss matters of state. (Lindsey was home in SC for the Christmas holidays.) Ard also said a Playstation3 was office equipment. And he sure bought a lot of gas, women’s clothing and fast food with campaign contributions.
When I went looking for numbers to investigate Doug’s claims the other week, I found this fabulous document:
http://www.budget.sc.gov/webfiles/OSB/historical/Historical_Analyses_2010_revision_3.pdf
It has just about any number you’d want going back to about the mid 90’s. Expenditures, revenue, general fund appropriations, EIA money, full time positions by funding source, total budget amount, general fund amount, percent of general fund to total, percentage of total budget by function, percentage of general fund by function, capital reserve fund….etc. Any number you want. It probably is in this document somewhere.
“So if we have a cap, should greater financial emphasis automatically go to the faster growing components?”
Tim, Tim, Tim– the greater emphasis goes to campaign donors and likely campaign donors. Pay attention!
Cindy Scoppe has got to be one of the best journalists in the country, and certainly a servant to this state. I hope I represent a (mostly?) silent majority who much appreciates the work she does.
Cindi, sorry.
That’s a good link, Scout. In fact, it’s so good, I posted it with the numbers I used to show that total state government spending has continually grown over the years (and faster than inflation + population). i.e. “the truth”
Just so I have this straight, it’s Bobby Harrell’s budget (and has been for many years) but it’s Nikki Haley and Mark Sanford’s fault that it hasn’t grown at a pace that pleases some people. Got it.
Total state government spending is the highest it has ever been. Total spending per pupil is higher than it has ever been. You can play games looking at individual revenue streams but you can’t deny the facts. South Carolina spends more per capita than neighboring states with worse results.
Are you willing to see the general fund revenue increased but offset by cuts in the other revenue streams? If not, then you can’t pick and choose which parts you claim are too low while pretending that overall spending isn’t higher. It’s a game played by Harrell to make it look like he’s a conservative holding the line on taxes while inflating the other revenue streams to get the necessary bloat the government needs. (5 + 5 + 10) is not less than (4 + 6 + 11) just because 4 < 5.
Just say it – you want taxes to be higher across the board. You want those who pay the most to pay more regardless of the efficiency and performance of the government. You won't consider cutting government spending in some areas to fund higher priority items.
@Doug, if it’s the truth, why do you put it in quotes? If it is the truth, it’s the truth. If it’s not based on fact, then it’s “the truth.”
As I read your first paragraph, I was hearing a car salesman say “best car on the lot” and seeing him cross his fingers behind his back.
I’d like to see SC government funded at a reasonable level. If that involves somewhat higher taxes, so be it. Maybe then I won’t have to wear a kidney belt when I’m driving to Barnwell, Greenwood, Hampton, Abbeville, or anyplace else off the interstate.