(Syndicated to Kansas newspapers Aug. 10, 2015)
The Legislature is within weeks of approving a contract for up to $3 million with some probably out-of-state consulting firm to take a look at how we do government here and suggest ways to do it more economically, or even decide whether the state is doing stuff that it really doesn’t need to do.
That’s the “fresh eyes” concept that a nearly broke state approved with surprisingly little debate last legislative session and the governor signed into law.
It’s to bring in a consultant to see what the state does and whether it is doing it in the most efficient, economical way. Sounds good, of course. Less spending, fewer taxes: That’s what lawmakers are looking for as 2012’s massive income tax cuts/eliminations effects are finally becoming troublesome. The surpluses in the budget that allowed some to say “just a little more time for these tax cuts to spur the economy, and by the way increase tax revenues” are gone.
So far those cuts haven’t dramatically boosted the state’s economy and budget, and something has to be done.
This hiring outsiders to dissect state spending sounds like a fairly good idea.
There may just be things that Kansas does that other states don’t. We may have a 155-year tradition of doing thing the Kansas Way, partly because, well, that’s how we do it here, and partly because, well, that’s how we’ve always done it here.
Fresh eyes, especially those of accountants and efficiency experts, might just yield some ideas for saving money. Saving a few bucks by eliminating warning shots (do cops still do that?) or copying on both sides of the sheet of paper isn’t going to cut it. But centralizing state functions—say human resources and payroll departments, computer operations among state agencies—probably makes some sense, though it is likely to mean fewer state workers, and you can either say the state is becoming more efficient or just shedding jobs. That assessment depends on the location—government centers—and to some degree, the House and Senate members whose constituents are those laid-off workers.
And, if those consultants come up with a money-saver that has already been proposed, but not adopted, well, now “fresh-eyed” professionals have vetted those ideas, which will make them easier to get passed by the Legislature.
Oh, don’t forget that likely targets for efficiencies are the state’s more than 290 independent school districts. Look for an accountant to decide that they don’t all need their own business offices, payroll clerks or purchasing agents. That’s probably the quickest, simplest and potentially explainable to the Kansas Supreme Court as a reason to carve money out of already tight state appropriations for K-12 education.
The state probably spends money on people and things that it doesn’t need to spend our tax money on. Most state spending doesn’t affect us, but remember that all state spending impacts someone. It might come down to deciding who those “somebodys” are and whether they vote in Republican primary elections where most of the decisions are made on who gets into the Legislature.
Another key is that the contractor will be hired by Oct. 1, and by Jan. 1 will have some ideas for efficiencies—which is the Legislature’s term for cutting spending. Enough ideas bearing the seal of an independent, not-from-here consultant and it might be possible for lawmakers to quickly adopt something that will carve spending so that there is no need for an election-year tax increase that would certainly mean some legislators won’t be returning after next year’s elections.
Interesting possibilities for a Legislature that doesn’t want to raise taxes…