Michael Swickard
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.” – Chuck Swindoll
There are great opportunities disguised as impossible situations facing the New Mexico Legislature in their budget shortfall special session. The same Legislature and governor who did not listen to good advice about the transitory nature of the state’s revenue are meeting to fix the financial problems of their own making.
A year ago the state was rolling in dough and could not spend it fast enough. It had been that way for five years. The opening of the financial floodgates was politically driven by the belief that, “The citizens deserve this money and more and more.”
At this time last year the annual Bill Richardson Special Session met to give New Mexico’s projected extra money away. Some people were hollering “Whoa” but the stampede to spend all the money and more was in full stride. Then, the revenue stream faltered, so the budget now must be reduced significantly.
In five years the New Mexico budget grew 37 percent — from $3.8 billion in 2002/03 to $6 billion in 2007/08. In just the 2006/07 year New Mexico’s budget grew from $5.1 billion to $6 billion. Unfortunately, no amount of money can satisfy the limitless demands. It was ever so easy to go up $900 million, while going down $700 million is almost impossible.
As the money was allocated, legislators were warned that the unexpected flexible revenue should be spent on non-recurring projects so if revenue fell there would not be a dilemma. But that is easier said than done.
Focused on the moment
Much of what happens in government is focused on the moment. Many politicians feel if they do not get re-elected, anything they did for the future is wasted because it did not extend their time in office. Every time they give government money it is politically orgasmic for them. The local media carries constant press releases about tax dollars given to organizations by politicians running for re-election.
When revenue slows, where are politicians? They run for cover. All those who talked about global warming are now in a jam because the New Mexico oil industry is not supplying extra money.
Budget cuts are often dealt with disingenuously. Example: Years ago the Albuquerque Police Department had a budget shortfall that it addressed by removing some of the on-the-street policemen in the worst section of town. Sorry, we do not have the money.
The public insisted on more funding for the police department. No one asked, why not reduce administrative staff? The rear-echelon workers were never considered for layoffs because the citizens would not care.
Brace yourself for that same logic in the next week.
Two paths
In general there are two paths: They can fully fund the high-priority, core programs at the expense of the less-critical public servants. The on-the-street police officers, fire crews, prison guards, doctors, nurses and teachers would not see any change, while state employees in non-critical areas would be downsized.
The other way is to consider anyone employed by New Mexico to be equally critical and cut everyone equally. Some legislators contend all employees of the state have families to support so they should keep their jobs.
I disagree. The one and only reason for state workers to be on the payroll is to address the needs of the citizens, not the other way around. Example: We hear that “education” may be cut, but there is little differentiation between classroom teachers and those who do not teach. Taking anything away from children because adults need employment is anti-education.
Time to learn what the priorities are
At one time I worked for a university that had periodic budget shortfalls. I was never popular when I said, “Now we get to see the priorities of the university. When there is plenty of money everything gets funded. With a budget crunch we get to see the priorities.”
While I was attending that university the computer center was forced to reduce the hours available for students in labs because part of the budget was striped from them and given to the Athletic Department to plug financial holes. Likewise, we were told that the library lost money to the same budget shortfall in the Athletic Department.
There were some weak protests but quickly we shrugged and went on with our academic lives. In our minds, though, we knew what the core of the university was, and it was not scholarship, despite all of the rhetoric. At least we knew.
That is what I hope for in the special session. This is an opportunity to express the core priorities of the state and discover which are not. We can refocus the tax-supported public servants of the state for our benefit.
But Michael, some employees will be laid off. Yep. It will sting that fine people who are doing jobs that are not that important will have to find something else to do. It was not their fault that the leaders allowed non-recurring money to be tied to recurring obligations of employment.
If the extra money had been spent on roads and bridges and the like, we could hold back a little, but once someone is hired there is a problem.
What is not sustainable is the notion that all current jobs must be kept and raising taxes either overtly or covertly will plug the gap. This is a great opportunity to brilliantly improve the state by making the core programs explicit.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.
Swickard bio │ Archives │ Feed