×

Learning to make do with less

During the past few years, officials in the executive branch of West Virginia state government have been remarkably successful in avoiding real spending cuts — while convincing Mountain State residents the reins were being pulled in.

They have, but not to the extent you may believe.

Last summer, state legislators adopted a $4.187 billion general revenue budget. Then-Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, upon whose revenue estimates the budget was based, signed it into law.

It took just weeks for it to become apparent $4.187 billion in revenue was dreaming. On Nov. 15, Tomblin ordered that spending be reduced to keep the budget in balance.

By the end of February, general fund revenue already was $106 million behind estimates. By June 30, the end of the fiscal year, the shortfall would be about $181 million, at that rate.

After Nov. 15, there were no more executive orders for spending cuts, by either Tomblin or his successor, Gov. Jim Justice. It would be easy to conclude that Tomblin’s order solved the problem.

It didn’t. Not even close. Tomblin’s order was for slightly less than $60 million in spending reductions — only about one-third of what may be needed.

What about the rest? Let’s go to the bureaucrats’ best friend, the accountants. An executive order issued by Tomblin on Nov. 4, to “redirect certain revenues,” gives you an idea of what’s happening. By gimmickry such as transferring money around from account to account, changing dates on which certain activities take place, “sweeping” surplus funds out of agency accounts and any number of other maneuvers, most if not all the remaining deficit of around $120 million is erased — from the books, at least.

The truth is that Tomblin’s midyear spending cut, over which there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Charleston, amounted to less than 1.5 percent of the budget.

Don’t get me wrong: Some agencies have had to cut spending by substantially more than that. You know what that means for the other bureaucrats.

You and I can only dream of handling our finances the way government does. If you’re prudent, you take a look at your income occasionally and govern your spending by that number.

Assume that on Jan. 1 of this year, you knew with certainty that during the coming 12 months, your family’s income would be 6.75 percent higher than in 2016.

Would you tell your friends you’d taken a pay cut? Of course not.

You don’t operate by the “base budget” technique government uses, however. Each year, the bureaucrats take the figure for what their agencies are receiving during that 12-month period, then add a percentage to that “base budget.” The higher figure is what they tell legislators they need to avoid cutting services. If they don’t get it, they tell us — with straight faces — that their budgets are being cut.

Look at the current situation in Charleston. State government will spend between $4 billion and $4.1 billion this year. Leaders in the House of Delegates have proposed a $4.27 billion budget for next year.

More money? Not in Bureaucratworld. A $4.27 billion budget — about 6.75 percent more than $4 billion — would require cuts, we’re told.

If I had a dollar for every time someone in government has told me I just don’t understand, I’d be emailing this column to the office from the Bahamas. Certain costs for services increase steadily, they say. For example, health care expenses, a large chunk of the state budget, are up. So more money buys less, they explain.

Really? And expenses don’t go up for those of us who have to pay Charleston’s bills?

They do, of course. But we have to set priorities, avoid waste and reduce nonessential spending. Leftovers can be dressed up. A camping vacation can be nice. The kids still fit into last year’s school clothes, so we don’t have to buy all new this fall.

It goes on and on. And you know what’s ironic? Many of the state employees have to do that with their personal finances, too. Why can’t they do it at work?

Mike Myer can be reached at mmyer@theintelligencer.net.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today