« Kerry - Political Genius - Bumped | Main | Red on Red »
November 01, 2006
A Modest Proposal
Last night, I was watching "Heroes" and during the program, saw a devastating and entirely preventable anti-TABOR advertisement. It seems those who produced the first Bill Owens advertisement forgot one of the most important rules of politics - always hire someone to do detailed opposition research on yourself so you're not taken by surprise.
That ad? It's going to defeat TABOR.
Of course, it wouldn't be a tragedy if TABOR were defeated. Sure, it limits spending to population growth plus inflation, but if that number equals to 4 or 5 percent, then you've just guaranteed every state agency in Maine a 4 or 5 percent budget increase for as long as inflation and the state's population grow. There's no accountability, no reason for them to make a case for their budget increases.
Yay, free money!
What is needed in Maine is not a blunt policy instrument, but an accounting for the money that is spent each year. After TABOR goes down to inevitable defeat, I am going to explore the option of a citizen's initiative that would mandate an audit for every state agency in Maine, to be performed by an out-of-state auditing organization.
Mainers deserve to know where their money goes, and what processes are used when spending decisions are made. A full audit of every state agency would show Mainers how their money is being spent, and on what. It would mandate no spending limits, no budget cuts and no changes in taxation. All it would do is increase the transparency of state government agencies.
I'm going to talk to some people who know about the citizen initiative process, and explore the feasibility of this idea. With luck, the Maine Budget Accountability Referendum will be coming soon to a ballot near you.
Posted by slublog at November 1, 2006 12:10 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2696
Comments
Go Peter! I can totally see you doing this. By the way, I was in Starbucks today along with Steve, Scott, and Danielle (no, we weren't there all together - I was with Dani and Scott and Steve were meeting). Anyway, we were all standing around and overheard these two guys talking and they dropped your name.... Hmmm what is up with that? I guess you or someone else with your name is well known.
Posted by: Esther at October 31, 2006 10:53 PM
What did you think of Tom Connolly dressing as Osama and waving a plastic gun around? I thought they shouldn't have arrested him, even though he continues to be a bit of a tool. DD
Posted by: Dan Dunkle at November 1, 2006 08:03 AM
Here are my first blush questions on your idea. Not skepticism per se but questions I'm sure lots of people would ask so I may as well be the first.
- What would mandated auditing cost? Can you demonstrate that auditing will save taxpayers money?
- Would there be any penalites for bad practices or incentives for good practice beyond transparency?
- Would there be any mechanisms for citizen redress of bad practice that are quicker than voting the problem people out or with less red tape than a referendum?
- What about unelected officials, what stick could citizens wield against them?
Well that's about it for now.
Posted by: mainiacjoe at November 1, 2006 08:25 AM
1. I think any cost would be covered by the savings shown with an audit. It's a truism that you're going to have some waste in large government organizations - an audit would simply show officials where the waste or sloppy practices are and how to stem the bleeding.
2. That would be up to the legislature and the governor. Since they have budgeting power, it's up to them to actually cut - which I think they'll want to do if waste is shown to exist.
3. Not really, since most of the money is being spent by unelected officials.
4. Death.
Posted by: Slublog at November 1, 2006 08:29 AM
This is a great idea, Peter.
It's frankly amazing it hasn't happened already. The only change I would suggest is getting rid of the 'out of state' prerequisite, and replacing it with 'impartial'. Out of state contractors carry just as much potential for bogus, crowd-pleasing data as in-state contractors.
Posted by: Lance at November 1, 2006 08:44 AM
While I agree TABOR is rough around the edges, what makes me mad is the FUD that all the state agencies, schools and public saftey groups are spreading...the sky is falling!!!
Your idea BTW is that of sheer brilliance. Let me know if you need some to pound on doors for you.
Posted by: downfleeced at November 1, 2006 09:04 AM
Connolly is a tool. I think the police probably enjoyed arresting him, to be honest. The guy's a defense attorney.
Posted by: Slublog at November 1, 2006 09:13 AM