Tom Campbell | Is it too much to hope the short session truly is short?

When lawmakers return to Raleigh May 18th for the “short” session they will be greeted by good news. The fiscal research division of the legislature projects that by June 30th (the end of the state’s fiscal year) the state will collect some $4.2 billion more than was forecast in this year’s budget.

When Democrats ran the Assembly, this news would signal they had money to spend and they would predictably set about figuring out where to appropriate more money. Republicans now in charge, just as predictably will pontificate this is prima facie evidence that taxes are too high and go about cutting more of them. Besides, they will reason, with inflation soaring to 8 percent, they can help more people by easing their tax burdens. North Carolina lawmakers wouldn’t be alone in contacting tax-cut fever. Other states are considering similar actions.

But both the Democrats’ and Republicans’ responses are wrong. Spending just because you have money is bad policy, often resulting in frequent boom-and-bust budget years. However, cutting taxes would be the worst move lawmakers could make.

What would be a wise course of action? Agree with her politics or don’t, but Senator Elizabeth Warren reveals wisdom in her book, All Your Worth. She calls it the 50-30-20 plan and, while it is primarily aimed at individuals, it also makes sense for government. Warren suggests dividing up your income and allocating 50 percent on needs, 30 percent on wants and 20 percent in savings.

Let’s begin with the savings. Using Warren’s model, 20 percent of our budget should be in reserves. Last November’s budget law pegged state government spending for the fiscal year beginning in July at $27 billion. Applying the 20 percent, we should maintain $5.4 billion in savings. The best information I’ve obtained indicates our current “rainy day” and other savings are $4.25 billion, therefore $1.15 billion of this year’s anticipated surplus should be added to our reserves.

This leaves a $3.05 billion balance. This is “one-time money,” meaning it occurs this year but can’t be counted on in future years. Budget prudence dictates not to appropriate one-time monies on continuing budget items, however our state has pent-up demands and we would advocate some wise investments even if they are recurring.

For starters let’s bite the bullet and fund Medicaid expansion, adding some 100,000 qualified recipients to the plan. 38 other states have done so and there’s little chance either the expansion will be defunded or the state’s 10 percent cost match will be increased. We understand Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger might be willing to go along with this expansion if coupled with the elimination of Certificate of Need laws (which needs doing) AND expanding the scope of authority for nurse practitioners, physician assistants and other care providers, which is likely to happen anyway. Bottom line: Medicaid expansion will add an extra $500 million per year in costs but will generate other huge benefits. A healthier NC benefits us all.

Next, fund the balance of the Leandro settlement plan, which is calculated to cost some $785 million per year.

State employees received pay increases in last year’s budget, but not enough to account for many years when they got nothing. Let’s do something now.

Finally, let’s spend on infrastructure, especially our roads. Major economic expansions have been announced for our state and more are coming. Our road system needs help. Further, we must add mass transit in rapidly growing urban areas. No, transit won’t pay for itself, but we subsidize plenty of other services. If the only criteria for government spending is that it must pay for itself, we would shut down schools, law enforcement, fire protection, healthcare, parks and other services people expect from their state.

The above are wise investments for a growing state, and we hope our legislature will stay focused and not venture into subject areas like abortion, education theories or issues likely to see a gubernatorial veto. These would only cause frustration, take time and cost taxpayers more money.