Wednesday, September 10, 2008

All About the Benjamins Part III: Alaska's $29.3M Bake Sale

In parts I and II of this article we began examining Vice Presidential nominee and current Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's 2008 budget (for 2009).   After the first post, some readers mentioned (some directly and not through public comment) that they didn't think that there was enough context to fairly evaluate these kinds of choices, so let's clarrify what the budget in question is for, its historical context and why we chose to look at these particular choices.

In 2007 Palin signed what was, at the time, the state's largest _ever_ operating budget ($3.3 billion in general state funds).  In fairness, she had little time after innauguration before this came to her desk.  However, instead of cutting the operating budget, the following year, the operating budget grew to approaching $3.8 billion in general state funds and 2009 $4.2 billion, with only about $1 million in state funds vetoed.  

The capital budget, on the other hand is more focused on funding for infrastructure: Schools, roads, emergency services, etc, and that is what we have been examining.   Sarah Palin vetoed about $268 million dollars of the state's $2.7 billion dollar capital budget, roughly 10%.  

There will be endless debates on just what should or should not be funded by the state on principle.  However, the simple fact that there is a budget  means that 100% of the dollars were prioritized and allocated as she felt appropriate.  An examination and comparison of what made the cut and what didn't is not only fair, it's logical.  Even if you think that the state shouldn't fund one thing on principle, you might feel even more strongly that they have even less business funding something else.  In the first two articles we examined some of those comparisons, primarily educational items which got cut vs. similar cost firing ranges and sports fields which didn't.

One commenter also pointed out that I had failed to mention that the reason for veto is also provided on many of those those line items: "Other funding options available".  After all, the argument went, as it said right there, there were "other funding options available," so this wasn't actually cutting funding.  Now, I have to admit that I am generally predisposed to think that schools are already drastically underfunded and doing everything that they can with every funding resource at their disposal, right down to sending kids out to sell candy bars, so I had the sneaking suspicion that "other funding is available" was merely politically safe code for cutting funding that schools really count on.  After all, in a sense, one could argue that "other funding is available" for just about anything:  You can hire someone to help you apply for federal grants, propose a local ballot measure with bond funding or even have a fundraiser (a bake sale, for example).  

Still, this was meant to be an intelligent examination and not an opportunity to deride a specific candidate, and I could be wrong, so I knew that we were going to have to check.  To this end, I turned to Google and found this Anchorage Daily News article. I would encourage you to read it yourself, as it goes into more diverse cuts and criticisms but still provides a fair and balanced look, including Palin's own defenses.  One passage that I thought was particularly relevant to the items that we discussed:

Anchorage Schools Superintendent Carol Comeau said she never got a chance to defend her projects to the governor's budget team.

Comeau said she was happy to see the governor keep $2 million in the budget for swimming pool repairs but was disappointed that security cameras meant to nab school vandals got the ax. The governor cut computers and library books too, saying there are other ways for the district to pay for them.


Armed with an actual name, another quick Google search gave us the email addresses of Comeau herself, as well those of all of the members of the Ancorage School Board.  We fired off an email  asking Comeau whether or not they had secured the "other funding" that was "available", to which she responded: 

We did not secure additional funding. The governor stated that community support through bonds or other funding could be available, not just state resources.
We followed up, asking if these funds meant submitting applications for direct federal grants, proposing a new local bond next time around, or having bake sales/candy sales and the like, to which she reponded:
The only other sources are booster clubs, PTSA group donations, and direct donations for grants. If they were emergencies, we would go to our fund balance for emergencies.

Several of the items we mentioned (such as roof, toilet and boiler repair) fall under the categories of safety and emergency, Anchorage Schoolboard member Jeff Friedman confirmed this and was considerably more straightforward in his response:

I believe the term "alternative funding available" doesn't refer to any specific source of money, but instead just means that other ways of paying for the project should be explored.

For some items that were vetoed, we will simply do without.  For other items, we will ask local voters to approve bond funding to pay for them.  If we do not have any other choice for critical needs, we can use classroom dollars.  And there will always be bake sales and PTA fund raising...[But] if you have to fix a roof, and there is no other source of money, you use money that would have been spent on paper, or books, or hiring more teachers to reduce class size, or some other important item.  In Anchorage, we always look for cuts that will have the least impact on students, but schools are chronically underfunded throughout this country so most have learned to be efficient with every dollar they get.  That means any cut will be from something that does help students learn.
Ultimately the price tag of the states spending went up more than 25% in two years, not down.  In all, more than 100 items totalling about $29.3 million dollars (more than 10% of the vetos) listed "Other funding options available" as the reason for veto, roughly $24.5 million of which were items for education.  Other cuts included funding for emergency services and roads.  But firing ranges and sports parks got funding.    

In other words:  I hope everyone plans on spending a lot at the bake sale... It's for a good cause.

2 comments:

Kracht said...

Fascinating research. Palin presents herself publicly as above reproach (and apparently beyond it, if you accept the GOP's tack), but clearly, these are the vetoes of someone new to power; they are intended to stabilize her position. Politically, this isn't really out of the ordinary, but there is the hint of something immoral about making cuts to education to fund "leisure industry" projects like shooting ranges and sports fields. Again, this may simply be politics as usual. But I really wonder why no one is talking about this. This is under-reported and needs a lot more analysis.

John Reynolds said...

New York Time's Article starting to peel away some of this facade.