Budgeting for the future makes cents

Is it better to starve government or make an investment in the future?

These are two radically different visions of how to manage tax money. This philosophical divide is the basis for disputes on what the legislature accomplished in passing the budget for the biennium.

Republicans claim that the budget is a 22 percent increase over last session's spending. But is it really? Approximatly $350 million of the increase is for one time only expenditures. For example, $50 million from the general fund will go to new buildings, repairs and deferred maintenance. Normally the state would issue bonds, which have to be paid back with interest, to pay for this type of project. Since we have the money to pay outright, it saves the state money in the long run and takes care of a backlog of maintenance that we have not been able to afford in the past because we were trying to starve government..

Education got a substantial raise but a good deal of that is also one time only money. Twenty million dollars is pass through, which means the money goes to lower property taxes paid for schools. It is not increased spending because the schools do not benefit from this money. Approximately $30 million will be invested in building maintenance, but will not help fund the day-to-day operation of the schools. The schools had been neglected during the years of Republican domination and now we must spend more to catch up to where we should be.

$140 million of the budget goes for tax rebates and reductions, which is not increased spending.

$31 million is an investment in our university students to lower expenses so that they can graduate with less debt and perhaps be able to afford a job in Montana instead of going out of state to look for a higher paying job.

Ultimately, the increased taxes they pay will compensate for the increased spending.

The budget is also much more realistic and truthful because money to pay Montana's share of forest fires is included. When the Republicans were in charge, they left these out, but they are always a considerable expense which has to be paid. At the beginning of the next session a motion was passed to pay the bill but it never appeared in the budget. This created a convenient myth that the budget was lower than it actually was.

The corrections department received a $67 million increase to cover an expected 5.4 percent increase in incarcerations. Some legislators vote to put more criminals behind bars but neglect the pay the added cost.

We can starve government, neglect infrastructure and other needs and leave it to later generations to pick up the added cost. Or we can use the surplus to take care of problems now rather than passing them on. Thank goodness we had a Democratic governor and Senate to pass a budget to use the surplus wisely.

Eileen Carney

Libby