Posted on 11/02/2003 6:52:32 AM PST by Theodore R.
Paying for their promises Next governor's programs will carry a gigantic cost
By John Cheves HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
FRANKFORT - There's nothing wrong with Kentucky that a billion dollars couldn't fix.
That's the unspoken message behind the campaign promises of Republican Ernie Fletcher and Democrat Ben Chandler, self-described fiscal conservatives running for governor in Tuesday's election.
The Herald-Leader added up their promises -- including higher pay for teachers, more tax breaks for businesses and safer streets -- and estimated the price.
Fletcher would need $495 million in his first year to "Restore Hope." Chandler would need $816 million to put "Kentucky First."
Most of the money would come from the state's $7 billion General Fund, which already faces a projected $262 million revenue shortfall this year, despite Gov. Paul Patton's unpopular budget cuts.
These are the budget cuts that Fletcher and Chandler promise to reverse. They also scoff at raising taxes.
Given the funky math of the campaign trail, where candidates promise more for less, Kentuckians had better cover their ears and their wallets, according to state economic experts and former governors.
"There isn't going to be the kind of money they would need to fulfill their promises," said Larry Lynch, an economist at Transylvania University and member of an advisory panel that studies state revenue.
"The candidates say all they need to do is cut out waste, fraud and inefficiency," Lynch said. "The truth is, while there is certainly waste in state government, it's not $500 million."
Former Gov. Louie Nunn chuckled wistfully when asked about Fletcher and Chandler's optimistic pledges.
Nunn won the 1967 governor's race by promising to improve state services without raising taxes. Then he took office and found a $25 million revenue shortfall waiting for him. Reluctantly, he swallowed his promises -- and put an end to his political career -- by raising $29 million through higher sales taxes and fees.
"These campaign promises come back to haunt you," Nunn said. "When you make all these commitments, someone out there will expect you to keep them, and someone is going to be terribly disappointed."
A lot in common
Chandler and Fletcher have promised a lot, often echoing each other:
Every third-grader will know how to read. Teachers will be paid more. Small businesses and large manufacturers will get more state support, usually in tax breaks. More drug dealers will go to prison.
The candidates also make their own individual promises. Chandler pledges smaller classes and fewer school dropouts. Fletcher pledges to recruit a federal research laboratory, perhaps at Lexington's Coldstream Research Campus.
None of this would happen for free.
Raising the pay of 40,000 teachers by 5 percent would cost $105 million the first year, according to the state Education Department. Business assistance could cost $35 million or more. Convicting more drug dealers could cost $4 million a year in prison expenses alone, not counting the added strain on police and courts.
State budget planners, struggling to pay for existing services, are not eager to add new obligations.
"It's already going to be a major challenge next year to put together a budget," said state Sen. Richie Sanders, R-Franklin, chairman of the Senate budget committee.
Other campaign promises are hard to price.
The state Education Department can confirm that one-third of Kentucky children entering fourth grade do not read at their grade level, but how much it would cost to rectify that is anyone's guess, spokeswoman Lisa Gross said.
As for recruiting a federal research lab to Kentucky, as Fletcher pledges, there is some good news: The state would not need to offer roads, water lines and tax breaks, as it would to lure a new factory, said Dave Appler, the Washington, D.C. liaison for the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer.
However, a congressman -- the job Fletcher currently holds -- is in a much better position to bring home a lab, rather than a governor, Appler said. At the moment, he added, the federal government is not adding much to its lab system, given a looming budget deficit and many other demands.
"Research and development is not politically sexy," Appler said. "It's not a favorite area of Congress at this time, compared to something like homeland security."
Where is the money?
Fletcher and Chandler split on how they would pay for their campaign promises.
Fletcher signed a written pledge not to raise taxes. Instead, Fletcher said, he plans to raise more revenue by "growing the economy"; "tax modernization"; "cutting waste, fraud and inefficiency"; and chasing federal grants, spreading the cost of Kentucky's government to the deeper pool of national taxpayers.
Voters should note, as well, that the estimated cost of Fletcher's promises is barely half that of Chandler's, said Fletcher spokesman Wes Irvin.
"In candidate Chandler, you have somebody who has overpromised," Irvin said. "He literally goes to all of these different communities and different groups and promises a specific project for each of them."
While he does promise more, Chandler leaves himself wiggle room on revenue by endorsing expanded gambling and hedging on tax increases. Chandler says he does not plan to raise any single tax, but he, like Fletcher, calls for "tax modernization," and he dismisses Fletcher's no-tax pledge as a political stunt.
The Chandler campaign submitted a written plan to the Herald-Leader last week describing how a Chandler administration would generate or save many millions of dollars a year.
The plan includes legalizing expanded gambling (generating $250 million a year), buying prescription drugs in bulk with other states (saving $150 million a year), centralizing state debt collection (saving $200 million a year) and cutting 1,000 state jobs annually through attrition (saving $38 million).
Chandler will honor every campaign promise, although not right away, campaign spokeswoman Barbara Hadley Smith said.
"It's going to take some time. You have to put together a budget and see where you are, see what kind of revenue you have to deal with," Smith said. "Nobody ever said it's going to be simple, but it can be done."
Former Gov. Brereton Jones, who stressed that he hasn't paid close attention to Fletcher and Chandler's statements this year, said he warns candidates not to commit themselves, particularly during a weak economy.
"It's better to say, 'I will try to do this' or 'I want to do that,'" said Jones, who served in the early 1990s.
"The candidate who goes about promising motherhood, baseball and apple pie every day is not going to be believable to anyone after the election if they don't deliver," Jones said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reach John Cheves at (859) 231-3495 or at 1-800-950-6397, Ext. 3495, or by e-mail at jcheves@ herald-leader.com.
I put no faith in what Chandler proposes doing. The Dems will tell him what he will or won't do. They have no intention of seeing the number of patronage jobs go down - or fewer contracts going to "supporters."
In Ernie Fletche's case there are many of us (Republicans) who have one clear recommendation - shrink the size of state government - do MUCH LESS. Cut employee numbers and the scope of services provided. That's it. If Fletcher does that he will be elected to a second term when the time comes.
Expanded gambling would create more revenue so that in good economic times, the surplus would be larger. The politicians will then look at the pot of money and say "hey! we can create more programs!" Then when times get tougher, there are even more programs to cause higher budget shortfalls than you would have had before adding the new revenue source.
I would beg to differ. The "personal service contracts" (aka patronage payoffs) increased from $500 million to $2 billion under Patton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.