GoUpstate.com This is a printer friendly version of an article from www.goupstate.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.


Back
Article published Jun 26, 2003
Sanford's hearings and commission could generate good ideas

It's been a long time since anyone has taken a fresh look at South Carolina's budget.
Recent governors have been Columbia insiders, familiar with the process and acclimated to the standard operating procedure.
These governors have offered spending plans, but the General Assembly has always reserved the real budget for itself, drawing it up based on its established priorities.
The budget has always been based on what the state has done before. The process is biased in favor of the status quo. It makes real change difficult.
That may change because of the severity of the state's financial problems and because of a couple of actions Gov. Mark Sanford is taking.
A newcomer to Columbia, Sanford is not attached to the way the budget has always been created. But he is making himself familiar with it.
The governor is holding budget hearings now, almost a year before the next budget will be finalized. He is discussing the financial needs of state agencies and departments with those who run the state's programs.
He is looking for ways in which the state can improve its efficiency. And he has appointed a commission to do the same.
The Management, Accountability and Performance Commission is modeled after the Grace Commission that President Reagan established to identify waste in the federal budget.
The combination of Sanford's hearings and the MAP Commission could provide the state with a valuable, fresh look at the state budget -- from the perspective of a governor with no allegiance to the status quo but with a desire for improvement and efficiency.
South Carolinians can hope that the General Assembly will welcome this new perspective. In the past, the governor's budget has been all but disregarded by lawmakers as they set about creating their own budget.
A fresh take on the budget will be invaluable as the state struggles to provide services with dwindling resources. Continuing to cut all programs by specific percentages is a shortsighted solution. It would be better for the state if programs that provide little benefit were eliminated so that money could be spent on more effective programs.
That won't happen under the current system, geared toward the perpetuation of all state programs. It will take a new perspective on state spending and efficiency.