Today’s installment of GOP bamboozlement comes via the News Journal, where they are now trying to convince people that they want to constrain government spending. You should read the whole thing, but I’m not so sure who this convinces:
The proposal, co-sponsored by Rep. Deborah Hudson, R-Fairthorne, would require a three-fifths majority vote to approve the state’s budget if it expands faster than the rate of inflation.
Huh?
I’m not thinking that this addresses anything germaine about our current budget situation. And why would they want to do this now — it isn’t as though they were concerned about the growth in spending when they ran both chambers.
So in response to more budget shortfalls, all these guys can come up with are procedural moves that do absolutely nothing to constrain said spending. One of these days someone will ask them to put their budget proposals on the table and get them to stop showboating on this thing. What is fun about trying to index the government to the rate of inflation is that much of what the government does almost always rises faster than the rate of inflation and how do you fit genuine emergencies into “inflation”? How do you pay for the snow removal if the Feds don’t kick in? How do you pay for beach replenishment if the Feds don’t? The state runs landfills, whose operating costs almost always go up faster than inflation. I could go on, but you get the idea.
What I know for a fact is that government is not free. I also know that there are probably ways to get additional efficiencies from this government (hey — what about a unicameral legislature? How much would that save?), but at some point if you want to be taken seriously about constraining spending, you need to start putting real solutions on the table. Man up and tell Delawareans what — exactly — services now enjoyed by Delaware taxpayers that you would eliminate in an effort to ratchet down on spending. It is well past time to stop letting these bamboozlers pretend that government is free, to stop letting them get away with avoiding the political risks of actually enumerating what they would cut. And until they do — it just isn’t possible to consider them serious about dealing with either spending or budget challenges.