Numbers
There's been much buzz about Jones Street the past couple days about "the numbers." Specifically, lobbyists and legislators have been carping about the budget projections given to the chairs of the five big budget program areas: Education, Health and Human Services, Justice and Public Safety, Natural and Economic Resources and General Government.
As analyst and progressive do-gooder-type Chris Fitzsimon points out, if you do the math in the Health and Human Service budget and subtract the available money for next year from the figure that governor says he needs to keep everything going as it is right now you get $34.1 million.
While $34 mil is a lot of money to you or me, it's chump change in terms of government programs. It is, for example, about 1/5 of what mental health experts say is needed in terms of expansion if we're to keep going with mental health reform.
Since so many folks are yakking about them, I figured I'd share and put "the numbers" given to the subcommittees out there for discussion. (Click here/PDF)
When asked about the murmurs of discontent amongst the advocate community this morning, House Speaker Joe Hackney cautioned that it was early in the budget process and that things could change, especially when new revenue figures for the year come in later this spring.
"There's always an attempt to achieve some efficiencies early on," he said, which seemed like his cryptic way of saying, "Don't panic."
Unrelated but related: during a news conference this morning, education appropriators said they had been instructed to hold some money back from the early budget discussions so there would be some cash to act on recommendations yet to be formulated on curbing the drop out rate. It's enough to make me wonder just how much money might be "held back" in other areas as well.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Mark:
I've noticed in recent months that Forbes gives NC very high marks on business climate and tax affordability. How does that jive with the complaints about us being taxed to death and the "Tax Hike Mike" label put on the governor since 2002?
I've been wondering about that a lot, especially given that we are in a care crisis for mental health.
Posted on April 8, 2007 8:57 PM
Jeffrey:
When I've seen real tax policy people do state-to-state comparisons of N.C. to elsewhere, we usually wind up right in the middle, maybe a bit to the high-side but not too much. I can't remember how we rate in comparison to other Southeastern states, which may be where the tax-hike-Mike deal comes from.
The magazine business rankings (Forbes isn't he only one) I think have a lot to do with not only tax structure but available workforce, willingness of the government to bend over backwards for a big-name corporation, etc...
There is a real policy argument to be had about at what point taxes become too high. But I think there is an equally valid policy argument to be had about the costs of not paying for things like mental health care, etc...
And too often the debate over numbers gets caught up in hyperbole. As we speak, the House and Senate are arguing over whether to let a quarter-cent (0.25 percent) sales tax expire. On a $100 purchase that will be worth 25-cents to you and me. Yet this battle will be high-volume and consume a lot of time and media ink.
One little fun fact: Gov. Easley proposed making the much-maligned transfer from the highway trust fund to the General Fund $170 million this year. That would be exactly enough to cover all the new programs and services that the joint mental health oversight committee says will be needed next year.
Posted on April 8, 2007 10:29 PM