Budget ‘Cuts’ vs. ‘Reforms’

by John Lindstrom
Gongwer News Service
February 12, 2010

With Governor Jennifer Granholm’s release of her final proposed budget, the lyric from a ridiculously popular ’60s tune comes true: second verse, same as the first.

The legislative response, especially from Republicans, mirrors that verse as well.

Since fall, since the ill-fated agreement between Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop and House Speaker Andy Dillon (remember that thing?), the tune Ms. Granholm has warbled has called for the state to boost revenues to make up for cuts considered unfair. Officially, she has never wavered from that score, though the volume has been turned down to imperceptible as she prepared to deliver the 2010-11 budget.

In response, legislative Republicans have countered with a different melody, a sort of 12-tone discordant refrain of cutting spending, cutting government, that makes its point even as it lacks nuance. While Ms. Granholm’s vocals have dropped off, their chorus has stayed fortissimo throughout.

Now with the new proposed budget, Ms. Granholm sounds a variation on her theme. New revenue is needed, but not necessarily to stave off unwarranted cuts.

Instead, new revenue is needed to help cut business taxes, by about $1 billion. Oh, yes, and help prevent future cuts to education.

For Republicans and business the tune has not changed: not enough cuts, not enough cuts, the cuts here ain’t enough. Surprisingly, not all Republicans immediately rejected Ms. Granholm’s sales tax on services proposal (though enough did that its passage is less likely than a basso profundo hitting a high-C).

Of course, generally their complaint is not framed as not enough cuts. Sen. Wayne Kuipers (R-Holland) did say the budget needed to cut more. Then he retreated to the politically correct language of budget: common sense solutions and reforms.

Reforms, the budget does not reform enough, according to its critics. Basic reforms, structural reforms, common sense reforms, necessary reforms, required reforms, reformed reforms, fully formed reforms, reforms formerly reforming forms — that’s the language of budget cutting these days. Who, after all, is opposed to reforms?

No, we all love reform. Even Ms. Granholm calls for reforms. Reforms are the altar call of budget discipline, and once we are born again — reformed, shall we say — to the gospel of reforms, our souls will be cleansed and our characters mended and the budget, yes by God, will be right again.

Until we fall again, as we will, as we must, being formless and forlorn and all that, until we later reform yet again. Yeepers.

Okay, everyone loves reform, especially budget reforms. Former President Ronald Reagan ticked off the basic reforms — eliminating fraud, waste and abuse — even as the federal deficit doubled, tripled, quadrupled maybe under his watch. We all love reform.

But do we love budget cuts? Because reforms could mean anything, they could even mean tax increases, depending on the politician. But the crowd largely calling for reforms is not a tax-increasing crowd.

So, why not just say cut the budget? More to the point, say where to cut the budget. And while one is saying cut the budget, say what services and programs should be eliminated, because that is what will happen. And say how many state workers will lose their jobs, and how many cops and teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs, and what it will take for the economy to pick up those jobs and how communities will have to change to account for the changes in services.

These are hard, hard times. And if hard, hard decisions are required, then it is time to use language that reflects those decisions. Lawmakers and the public have to face the hard realities that reforms could mean cuts in their schools, their road repairs, their restaurant inspections, their ambulance service, and have to decide that those are cuts they are willing to live with if not die from.

Saying we reform says nothing. It makes us feel good and hides what might make us feel bad. Saying we “cut” at least allows us to gauge the cut, assess if it is proper and prepare for it.

So as the state struggles through this budget, it is reasonable to hope the choristers reform and sing budget plainsong, simple and direct and painfully true.

John Lindstrom is publisher of Gongwer News Service. For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.