newsminer.com

I have a friend who works for the state and, whenever I talk about work, requests that I ask lawmakers to pay state workers more. That’s not my job of course, but the point is that public employees probably don’t see state spending as ballooning out of control, as lawmakers suggested today.

Today on the House and Senate floors, lawmakers presented something of a puzzle with regard to the operating budget. The very lawmakers most responsible for shaping the bill also criticized it as unsustainable.

So did other lawmakers, Republican and Democrat.

“This is out of hand,” said Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux, a Republican.

“Holy moly,” said Rep. Mike Doogan, a Democrat.

But some lawmakers also challenged the suggestion that the spending was out of control.

“This year I actually agreed with some things that are going to cost some more,” said Rep. John Coghill, a hesitant spender.

Coghill specifically mentioned pay increases for people caring for elders.

The Finance Committee co-chairs who presented the bill to the House and Senate today described a 23 percent increase in spending over last year. That may be true, but it certainly doesn’t reflect the cash going into state salaries, new state employees, and new programs -- the kind of stuff people think about when they talk of “growing” government.

Gov. Palin’s budget proposal would have increased funding for state agencies by about 5 percent over last year, a figure that covers any new positions and salary increases. Lawmakers knocked that down to under 4 percent, and, according to Sen. Lyman Hoffman, cut 133 full-time positions from the governor’s request.

Funding for the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and the Department of Natural Resources would have increased slightly under Palin’s plan but will actually decrease under the budget passed by lawmakers. (Military and Veterans Affairs is facing an 8 percent budget cut, although this might have to do with a fund swap.)

Lawmakers also passed new legislation boosting money for K-12 education and adding funding for other things, which brought the total operating budget increase to 8.5 percent (if you include a few "operating" budget items that ended up in the capital budget).

So what’s causing the 23 percent increase in general fund spending?

-$460 million for oil production tax credits. Last year the state paid out about $50 million; this year it will pay $460 million. The payment is a huge, new cost, but it’s part of a new oil tax that has also brought in a huge amount of revenue.

-$450 million to pay down retirement debt. This is the first time the state is paying down the debt (which is many billions of dollars) in the operating budget. It’s also not really a choice.

-$175 million to the public education fund. This is money that will go toward K-12 education some time in the future.

-$144 million to debt service. Last year it was only $125 million.

-$37 million for fund capitalization.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s my understanding.

So while the money appropriated in the operating budget this year is a lot more than last year, it's not quite right to think government grew by 23 percent. A lot of the new money wasn't even optional, and it probably won’t thicken the wallets of state workers.