No unfunded mandates, no cost shifting

My earliest memory of a government budget was at the kitchen table in elementary school. My father worked in the county auditor's office. At dinner, mom asked dad how his day went. He replied "The state gave us more work to do, but didn't give us any money to do it." Decades later, I can relate that story to any government official and they immediately understand the problem. Unfunded mandates, cost shifting and grants with complex requirements have obscured the transparency that citizens should expect from the use of their tax dollars. Instead of shifting responsibility, whoever issues a government order should fully fund that expenditure from their own budget, and be held responsible for the outcome. There is no provision for local government in the U.S. Constitution. It creates only a national government and state governments. Any local government is a subdivision of the state government, with as much or as little authority as the state allows. But far too often, states delegate to local officials only the day to day responsibility for routine matters, but not the ability to decide best practices to meet local needs, and no way to pay for fulfilling the new task. The requirements of what must be done are made in the state capitol or Washington by people who have no reason to be concerned with how to pay for it. The local people responsible for paying for it have little control over the new costs — and both sides know it. State officials take credit for creating the new program without taking a hit to their own budget, or blame if it is too underfunded to operate as envisioned. Often the response is "apply for a grant". But grants usually come with a lot of strings attached. The application process is often complex, costly, and time consuming — time that could be better spent providing the service if it was fully funded by whoever created the program when it was mandated. Since only some local governments are successful in securing a grant, citizens in different parts of the state receive different levels of service for a statewide mandate, unequal in its implementation. Instead, the state could set minimum standards for the entire state, and fully fund those standards. Then local governments could go above and beyond the state standards, with the additional cost solely at local expense. In other words, the standard and responsibility are inextricably tied to funding to pay for it. The state can set the standard as high or low as it wants. For instance, for elementary school classrooms, the state could fully fund out of the state budget a salary of $8,000 a year for teachers in a class of 60 students. Any local school district that wanted higher salaries, smaller classes, or both, could increase local taxes for local schools. Obviously, every community would. Conversely, the state could pay teachers $500,000 a year with a maximum class size of seven students, fully paid for out of the state budget. Local districts could raise local taxes to get even higher pay or even smaller classes, but it seems unlikely anyone would. The state sets a standard and fully pays for it. Local people decide if they want a better standard, and pay extra for that. Voters would know who is responsible for what, and could decide if the higher taxes are worth it. This concept of tying together the responsibility of setting the standard and fully paying for it can be applied to any government mandate at any level - federal, state, or local. Any candidate who campaigns on a proposal to do anything will need to find a way to pay for it if they are elected. Voters can ask how before they vote. For elections, ever since the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) after the disputed 2000 Bush-Gore race, Congress has meddled in election laws that were previously the jurisdiction of state and local governments. These laws technically only apply when a federal candidate is on the ballot. But it is impractical to set up a completely separate system for elections when there is no federal candidate, so effectively the federal government has usurped the state's authority. But has the federal government fully covered these new election costs? Of course not! There are HAVA grants for some expenditures, but the nature of these grants further tightens federal control, with additional restrictions to get the grant. Then if the grant is unavailable the next year, the local jurisdiction is left with the entire cost of the additional program, or blamed for cutting it. Too often, the uneven distribution of grants causes more disparities than existed before the regulation was proposed! The time and effort needed to apply may make it not worth the trouble, especially for smaller offices most in need of help. But if total funding was directly linked to the new regulation, the lawmakers might reconsider. So, whatever level of government — federal, state, or local whatever branch of government — legislative or administrative, appointed or elected whatever directive, mandate, supplemental emergency clause, regulation, provision, requirement, or contract amendment whatever office or program — elections, schools, highways, anything whoever orders "This must be done" gets to pay for it out of their own budget line item. Set the standard high or set the standard low. Pay for it with sales taxes or income taxes or property taxes or user fees or bake sales or anything — whatever way they want as long as it is their own budget, not shifted to someone else. Then they get the credit if it works and the blame if it does not. Just tie the funding to the responsibility for full transparency. David Koehl is a former member and chairman of the Seneca County Board of Elections, and was chairman of the Seneca County Republican Party. He can be reached at paperandink44883@yahoo.com.