Where Do We Cut?

By Representative Vic Kohring

Difficult decisions lie just around the corner, as members of the Legislature's House and Senate Finance Committees prepare to vote on next year's operating budget. Gone are the days when we can get away with trimming a little here and cutting a little there. It's time to start looking at wholesale elimination of programs, if we're to truly come to grips with closing the fiscal gap and downsizing government once and for all.

Unfortunately, few Alaskans will go unscathed in this process, as we all must tighten our belts. In the short-term, there will pain; however we will gain in the long-term as we move more toward a smaller and leaner bureaucracy that encourages a healthy private-sector economy and less dependence on government handouts.

As a member of the House Finance Committee, I'm directly involved in this budgetary process. Our Republican Majority has a 5-year plan to eliminate the deficit, which calls for $ 60 million in cuts for the next fiscal year. Every subsequent year gets tougher and tougher, as we continue to ratchet down spending. We're now into year 3 of that plan.

Each Finance member is tasked with identifying specific areas to cut spending within our own budgets of assignment. The House leadership has assigned me the Departments of Community & Regional Affairs, Environmental Conservation and Commerce & Economic Development budgets. The difficulty is that each program in these budgets has a constituency tied to it. So, no matter where we cut, someone ends up unhappy.

The question is, just where do we cut ? I still maintain that it's imperative we prioritize spending and fund fully the basic essentials that we're constitutionally mandated to do, such as roads, schools and public safety. And we have the money to do so, if we allocate wisely. Everything else though is fair game and should be placed on the table. These include such social programs as welfare, corporate subsidies, grants to businesses that artificially stimulate the economy, and other non-essential programs like television and the arts.

As my Finance colleagues and I head toward our budget "close-outs" this month (where each of us present our recommended budgets to our respective subcommittees for a final vote), the day of reckoning grows near. Will we have the courage to buck the status quo and make the tough decisions to significantly cut the budget and eliminate unnecessary social programs? Will we be able to withstand the crush of special interest groups lobbying for more state dollars ? I for one intend to hold my ground, and certainly hope others don't knuckle under the pressure.

Frankly, I don't think we have a choice but to cut. Let's roll up our sleeves and get the job done. The reasons are, first, because the state truly has serious financial problems stemming from a bureaucracy that's way too large in size and scope. Second, we are spending more than we are taking in. And third, because the lion's share of our constituents emphatically stated in the last two elections that they want government cut.

1997 marks a crossroads in our state's history. We can turn "left" by continuing down a liberal path of more and more social spending, or "right", by moving in a conservative direction of less government and a greater private sector role.