Duck-calling platforms and fireworks, or highways? The governor's highway plan is neither that simple nor harmless, but it includes such an appeal.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson proposes to divert $25 million a year in vehicle-related sales tax to highways. An even bigger chunk, estimated at $48 million a year, would come out of the state's famously pork-purchasing General Improvement Fund. The federal government will match the state's contribution by about 3-to-1 over the years. The governor would kick-start the program with $20 million out of the state's accumulated $39.1 million in "rainy day" funds and another $20 from other reserves.
There's no fund in state government that deserves a good raiding as much as general improvement. Whether the plunder should go for highways is highly debatable, but the last election likely ended that debate before it began.
Each fiscal year, state agencies have some money they didn't spend. The state also has interest earned on money from taxes before those deposits get spent. That's the General Improvement Fund. For much of this state's history, the sitting governor would decide how to spend that money. It usually went for worthy things like buildings at state universities.
Then a governor, Mike Huckabee, got into a serious disagreement with state legislators over how he spent that money. The Legislature decided to give itself half the GIF to spend. One quarter of the whole fund went to the House and another quarter to the Senate. Those chambers further divvied up the money among individual members. This proved to be both unwise and, in practice, unconstitutional. Some changes have since made the system legal, but the result is largely the same: Lawmakers get to funnel money to local projects.
Many worthy things have been paid for with the Legislature's share. Life-saving equipment for volunteer fire departments all over this state came from there. Some "meals on wheels" for the elderly did, too. Then there was the admirable decision one year of the Northwest Arkansas delegation to pool all their money to get some mental health facilities built here, for instance.
Ah, then there are the projects that made much better headlines. A July 4th, 2012, fireworks display in Saline County literally sent $5,000 of taxpayer money up in smoke. My favorite is still $181,000 in 2005 to build a stage for the Wings Over the Prairie Festival in Stuttgart -- a duck-calling contest.
In between, I appreciate lights at somebody's Little League baseball field as much as any parent. That's not what state government is for, though.
Lots of people harbor no love for the GIF but believe this state should spend the money it has wisely. They want more pre-kindergarten education, for instance. Or mental health. Or higher education. Or some other clearly worthy thing. Well, elections have consequences. Those who want some big, new initiative by state government are looking at it. It's highways.
At the other end of the political spectrum, there are those who want the state to stop taking Obamacare money. The governor explicitly said at his highway proposal's unveiling that his plan won't work without that federal health insurance money. Therefore, if you vote against his health insurance system, you vote against highways. Argue that's a false choice if you want. The governor just put that ball in your court.
My biggest concern with the governor's plan is how it further reduces the margin of safety built into the budget. As much as I poke fun at where the GIF money went, it's reassuring to know it's there. It just should go somewhere else. It's a flexible part of a largely inflexible budget. Much of that flexibility goes away if that money becomes a needed part of a highway budget. Then if we have a shortfall one year, we're more likely to have to raise a tax.
You don't spend $20 million of your $39 million rainy day fund without hoping it won't rain, either.
Things like prison and health care costs keep rising. The feds will insist that states pick up some of the Obamacare costs someday, too.
Hutchinson has been both disciplined and lucky so far. He's also going to be governor for another three years at least. So somebody can argue he's the one running the risk of having to increase taxes in the future. I'd argue that the person facing a much bigger risk will be his successor.
Commentary on 01/23/2016