|
This year, Florida TaxWatch considered nearly 1000 individual projects as potential turkeys. TaxWatch found that the 1999 Legislature generated 526 total budget turkeys valued at $234.7 million out of a total budget of $48.9 billion for 1999-2000. Of the total appropriated for budget turkeys, 291 budget turkeys worth $129.7 million were found in General Revenue and 235 budget turkeys worth $105.0 million were found in trust funds. This year's budget turkeys cost $39.12 for each Florida family, and cost every man, woman and child in Florida $15.65.
What Is A Budget Turkey?
Florida TaxWatch has been declaring war on budget turkeys since 1983, and the hunt continues. This year, Governor Jeb Bush, lauding TaxWatch's efforts, issued his own guidelines and with input from TaxWatch, will make out his own list. As in previous years, it is important to note that the "budget turkey" label does not denote condemnation of a budget item's worthiness. The term merely suggests that with the state's vast and pressing needs and limited resources, the question must be asked, "Is this the best use of the Floridians' state tax dollars?" The priorities of all citizens must be considered. This and previous Turkey Watch reports are not attempts to record only government waste or inefficiency. While in some cases that may be a factor, this report offers an independent assessment about the honesty, integrity and public review of the state's $48.9 billion 1999-2000 budget.
"Florida voters who place greater importance on projects within their community, at the expense of what are clearly more critical needs of the state majority, must share in the responsibility of the turkey fiasco. Legislators, however well-intentioned and noble when first elected, learn very swiftly that petty parochialism pays off when voters tally the score of the legislative sessions. Those who reward turkey-prone lawmakers with re-election are no less guilty of abuse of the state's trust than are the lawmakers themselves." -- Florida TaxWatch |
1. Projects or programs that did not go through any review process allowing for proper evaluation: agency budget requests, governor's recommended budget or legislative committee hearings.
2. Subsidies to private organizations, councils or committees which can and should obtain funding from private sources.
3. Local government projects benefitting local area residents but lacking significant local funding support and/or overall benefit to the state as a whole.
4. Projects lacking an empirically demonstrated public benefit but instead benefit some special interest. Appropriations which circumvent competition and mandate that a specific vendor or project receive funding.
5. Low priority projects that get funded over higher priority items.
6. Inappropriate sources and questionable appropriations e.g., only partially funded with a large annualized cost in subsequent years, funded from inappropriate sources and/or duplicative of existing programs.
"Parochial" Legislative Spending
This category addresses issues that may or may not have merit but feature some characteristics of traditional "budget turkeys." What's different is that they have gone through at least a cursory legislative review and processes that conform to the letter of the Legislature's self-defined parameters of prioritization. As such, parochial spending on projects, programs, vendors or locations can undercut the spirit of true performance-based program budgeting. Moreover, such spending circumvents accountability, disrupts logical program prioritizations and subordinates statewide concerns to the localized needs or desires of exclusive areas of the state.
Government Accountability, Turkeys and Member Issues Are Incongruous Constructs
The failure to demonstrate accountable behavior is at least as serious as the waste of money or the inappropriate assignment of priority. With many challenges facing our state, the Legislature should focus on funding issues of statewide concern, not the profusion of local projects.
Other serious issues such as the reduction of bonding, further reductions in taxes, etc. could have been addressed by the Legislature. Unfortunately, such long-lasting and profoundly relevant issues take a back seat to festivals, local building projects, and local development projects, with few norms or standards and little accountability.
By mocking budgetary accountability, the legislature erodes it in the rest of government.
Member Issues and Budget Turkeys Contradict Fiscal Conservatism
Given the profusion of member issues and budget turkeys, the definition of fiscal conservatism may take on new meaning. Worse yet, fiscal conservatism may lose all relevance as a political construct that has significance in the discernable behavior of the body politic. Fiscal conservatism is not founded upon principles that pander to parochial needs or responds to the pressures of special interests. Responsible stewardship of public expenditures is restricted to the support of a common good that allows the optimum of individual initiative and free behavior. Fiscal conservatism operates within the confines of specific parameters. These parameters answer questions such as: What is just? What is required? What is prudent? What is accountable? Is government the last resort to these ends?
What Else Could a Turkey Buy?
One of the best arguments for stopping turkeys is the many urgently needed state services that the funds spent on turkeys would otherwise purchase. Florida TaxWatch investigated other funding opportunities for the revenue appropriated to this year's turkey crop. More than $130 million of General Revenue, now appropriated for budget turkeys, could be used to purchase any one of the following critically needed social service, educational and statewide needs:
More than 3800 new public school teachers
An additional 65,000 computers for classrooms
$55 in additional funding for each K-12 student
30,000 new child care slots
provide a general tax reduction of $39 per household
$20 million worth of environmentally endangered lands using misappropriated trust fund dollars
A second sales tax holiday during the winter holiday season
The proliferation of member issues often occurs with dozens of earmarks listed as proviso
language in a specific line item, such as the line item in the Department of Environmental Protection's
Budget for local parks or the line item for local livestock pavilions and farmers markets in the
Department of Agriculture. This year's appropriations bill contains such listings of earmarks in
almost every agency. The most notable were those found in the Department of Juvenile Justice:
|
The forty-two items listed in proviso for line item 949 may provide a necessary service within the Department of Juvenile Justice. Unfortunately, by specifying these particular programs or vendors, the Legislature circumvents statutory requirements established for this purpose to develop the Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grants (985.415, Florida Sstatutes). Local Juvenile Justice Councils are granted authority to determine which agencies and programs are appropriate for their local jurisdictions. In addition, the Legislature sets forth responsibilities in structuring the grant process by which the local councils are to:
Through circumvention of the grant process, local juvenile justice councils are limited in determining the level of accountability, increased value and the health and safety of the program participants within these private providers. If the Legislature is going to intervene in this manner, it must provide for requirements so that these vendors be held accountable for their activities. |
Another growing trend prevalent in this year's budget is the growing misuse of trust fund dollars. Florida state statutes dictate the authorized uses of trust fund dollars state funds set aside to meet specific state needs and priorities. This year's budget, to a degree greater than in years past, contains several examples of trust fund monies being allocated to programs or activities not authorized by statute. The most alarming example of this misuse of state funds is the proliferation of tobacco settlement dollars on parochial projects.
Use of Tobacco Settlement Funds
Of significance this year is the uncontrolled use of Tobacco Settlement funds. TaxWatch identified more than 150 items ($90.0 million) funded from tobacco funds in the Departments of Children and Families, Health, and Elder Affairs. While initially considered as "potential turkeys," only those tobacco-funded items appearing exclusively in the Conference Report are identified in our report as turkeys.
The other tobacco funded items were potential turkeys because they appeared to violate the funding guidelines of section 569.21, Florida Statutes (Expenditures of tobacco settlement proceeds). In summary, the guidelines indicate that programs funded from the tobacco settlement proceeds should emphasize education, training and enforcement; maximize the funding of programs that raise matching funds and have a grant and contract process that is competitive and objective and includes performance measures. The TaxWatch review of issues funded from tobacco settlement funds did not find conformity to these guidelines.
Florida TaxWatch is concerned because more than $13.0 billion in tobacco settlement funds are estimated to be received over a twenty-five year period. It is incumbent on the Legislature to develop and adhere to specific statutory procedures as to what is the appropriate use of tobacco funds, including: a needs determination process, a grant application process, competition and prioritization of grants, specific performance measures and grant recipient accountability. Otherwise, tobacco settlement funds will be "turkeyed away."
On May 27th, Governor Jeb Bush delivered his veto message on the 1999-2000 Budget. On the Governor's list were 415 items (80% of the total items) identified by Florida TaxWatch for a total amount of $159 million (68% of the total amount).
Page 1 includes Turkeys in: Education, Children and Families, Elder Affairs, Health, Corrections, Juvenile Justice, Law Enforcement, and Legal Affairs.
Page 2 includes Turkeys in: Agriculture & Consumer Services, Community Affairs, and Environmental Protection.
Page 3 includes Turkeys in: Transportation, the Executive Office of the Governor, Insurance, Labor and Employment Security, Management Services, State, and the State Court System.
review a program budget, including the amount and sources of local cash and in-kind resources committed to the budget. The proposal must establish to the satisfaction of the department that the entity will make a cash or in-kind contribution to the program of a value that is at least equal to 20 percent of the amount of the grant; and