Spending up? Just imagine that

Inter Lake editorial

Evidence is gathering for Montanans to expect another cycle of aggressive growth in state government spending.

Consider this recent "shocking" headline: "State agencies want budget increases."

Or how about this one: "Judge open to school funding hearing."

That's what we have to expect in the months leading up to the 2009 legislative session. It's all become quite standard, really. But it shouldn't be, especially if there are signs that the state's economy is struggling or contracting.

State agencies always make "wish lists" for spending, and this year those requests add up to a request for 245 new employees and an increase in general fund spending by $413 million over the next two years.

State Budget Director David Ewer stresses that the requests are a "first draft" and they will certainly be whittled down by the governor's office. Eventually the Legislature will have its say, cutting spending in some areas and increasing it in others.

The problem with it all is the perpetual attitude that state spending must grow and that it can never ever shrink, even a tiny bit.

Ewer noted that state agency directors have been warned that the next legislative session "will feel like a belt-tightening session." Translation: It will feel that way even though spending will definitely increase.

Granted, there are indeed rising costs, such as fuel and energy expenses, which can often justify a certain degree of overall spending increase. But even then, state government spending and taxation should reflect the state's economic realities.

And that brings us to the lawsuit filed by the Montana Quality Education Coalition seeking changes to the state's school formula. The coalition recently made a settlement offer calling for an additional $260 million a year in funding - that's $520 million in new spending over the biennium - and a judge has announced he will hear the case.

This type of wish list is troublesome, precisely because it may not be whittled down to reflect economic conditions in Montana. Affordability may not be a consideration, if the court deems that the coalition is entitled to the amount that has been proposed.

The question is, "What are taxpayers entitled to?" And if they are put on the hook for expenses they can't afford, won't they ultimately rebel? Can they be squeezed forever?

State government is going to spend more over the next two years, no doubt about it. But while the rest of us are trying to get the most out of our limited budget dollars, we hope our elected (and unelected) representatives can do the same.