Posted on Tue, Jan. 16, 2007

email this

print this

reprint or license this

These are a few of my favorite things from Sanford’s budget

By CINDI ROSS SCOPPE

Associate Editor

BEFORE lawmakers toss Gov. Mark Sanford’s latest budget proposal into the round file, they might want to take a serious look at a few of his ideas.

Some proposals are so big that they’ll have no choice but to at least consider them; restructuring the executive branch of government (an excellent, excellent idea, by the way) tops that list. Others are so universally supported that neither the governor nor any one else can claim ownership — more troopers, for example, and more tourism advertising. But others may not be heard from until Mr. Sanford rolls them out again next year, which would be a shame.

This isn’t entirely the fault of lawmakers. It’s an awfully dense packet, heavy on Mr. Sanford’s philosophy and often short on the crucial details, and it’s not always easy to unearth the useful nuggets. So let me offer a few of my favorite concepts — some new, some recycled, all worth fleshing out and turning into law.

• Increase the incentive to stop smoking. The state provides a free smoking-cessation program for state workers, and Mr. Sanford wants to add a financial reward if they quit. Taxpayers would pick up the projected $10 monthly increase in health insurance premiums for state employees who stop smoking, or who never started. It’s a smart investment, since the taxpayers have to spend $1,200 a year more to provide health insurance to a smoker than to a non-smoker. And no, this isn’t punishing smokers or dictating personal decisions. It’s the same concept as merit pay: rewarding behavior that the employer (that’s us) deems beneficial.

• Create a centralized travel division for state government, to negotiate rates and make sure employees use those best deals. But let’s not make the mistake of putting Minnesota Minivan Man in charge of it, as Mr. Sanford bizarrely proposes.

• Require small school districts to consolidate administrative services with neighboring districts. Mr. Sanford borrows this idea from the Education Oversight Committee to replace his own rejected (but superior) proposal to consolidate the districts.

• Stop over-paying retailers for hawking lottery tickets. State law grants a 7 percent commission for selling the tickets, which doesn’t require a lot of heavy lifting. Mr. Sanford reports that the average commission nationally and among the nation’s 10 largest lotteries is 6 percent. Other than “the convenience stores give out nice campaign donations,” no one has offered a coherent reason to pay 17 percent more, thus reducing available funds for the ostensible reason for the lottery, education.

While we’re at it, we also should cut our lottery advertising budget, less to save money than to reduce the unsightly specter of the state government actively encouraging people to gamble.

• Don’t re-hire TERI’ed employees unless they’re essential. Actually, Mr. Sanford would go further, and pay them just 75 percent of their old salaries. That’s probably not practical if they truly are essential, and if they’re not essential, then the state needs to have an open hiring process, with pay determined accordingly. It’s worth remembering what the TERI deal was: The state promised what amounts to extra pay if workers stayed on the job up to five years beyond their planned retirement; but in a futile and half-hearted attempt to limit the bonus to people who really would have retired sooner without it, the law required TERI’ed workers to quit when those five years were up.

As Mr. Sanford notes, many state agencies are re-hiring those employees after TERI. That’s fine if they’re the best people for the job, but if someone else can do the job for less, that person should be hired instead. And no, that’s not punitive. No one put a gun to state employees’ heads and forced them to sign the TERI contract and collect its extra benefits.

• Make it easier for the elderly to stay out of nursing homes. This may seem radical in a state where nursing homes have long been a favorite investment for legislators, but consider: Most people would rather avoid a nursing home if they can, nursing home care is far more expensive than in-home care, and our state spends so little to provide in-home assistance that we actually end up paying to put some people in nursing homes who could do fine at home with help. That’s entirely backward.

• Revive the Sunset Commission, which reviewed all state agencies to determine whether any should be “sunsetted,” or discontinued; the Legislature would have to vote to continue those agencies, rather than the usual process of voting to terminate them. The commission was abolished some years ago because lawmakers never shut down an agency, so I’d offer a pragmatic twist: Sunset individual programs within agencies. That would require a longer horizon, but at least it might stand a chance of producing results.

• Finally, base teacher pay raises on student performance rather than the number of years in the classroom, and award extra pay for teachers “who accept the challenge of a hard-to-staff position.” Likewise, replace across-the-board pay raises for state employees with merit raises.

That one isn’t an obscure idea, but it’s one of his best. It’s also an opportunity for the governor and the man who was not his choice for education superintendent, Jim Rex, to set aside policy differences and work together on an important idea they both advocate.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.