PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

I wrote a blog on this subject a couple weeks ago, but made a few changes to that first one, so this is another attempt to provide a better summary of my “kingly” propositions.

Every other year, when governors propose a two-year budget for the State of Oregon, I reflect on the process, which often arouses troubling thoughts about what is occurring.

I have these thoughts based on more that 40 years of dealing with such budgets, the first 15 as a state government manager and another 25 as a state lobbyist.

I report those credentials, not to indicate that I am some kind of a budget whiz. I am not. But, over the years, I learned that a state government budget was and is more than just a set of numbers. It was a way for governors to propose a set of policy formulations —formulations that would be under consideration in a legislative session for as many as six months.

So, regarding state budgets – and if I were king for day — I would:

• Require that governors propose a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” for the next biennium within current taxes, NOT new ones.

In this way, all of us would know exactly how much it would cost to operate state government for another two years, not how much it would cost if various folks paid higher taxes.

According to Oregon statutes, the deadline for producing such a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” is December 1. I suppose proposing a budget with new taxes is one way to meet the deadline. But I don’t think such an approach lies within the spirit of the law.

To be fair, a “current services” budget document is prepared separately from the governor. It is done jointly by the Legislative Ways and Means Office and the Executive Budget and Management Division, which is part of the Department of Administrative Services.

I have reviewed this document and it is very well done. I just wish it would be required to come from a governor.

• Require the same governors, if they want to propose increased taxes, to do so in a separate budget document.

In this way, we would know exactly what new, higher taxes are being proposed and what the desired new money would support. As it is, the new taxes, short of being analyzed by a few solid news reporters (one of whom is Jeff Mapes, who left the Oregonian a couple years ago and joined Oregon Public Broadcasting, which means his skills have beefed up the already strong OPB reporting staff) remain buried within budgets.

The effect is that no one really knows the rationale for the new taxes.

• Require the same governors to propose a document to indicate where they propose to cut state agency spending so budgets are not just recommended to be continued intact for two more years.

Budgets for state agencies normally – and, unfortunately — continue from one biennium to the next without much intent to assess whether the spending is achieving desired results. Or, if there is a results measure at all for government programs.

Such a test would improve the quality of what state government. Some programs are so important – important by bi-partisan consensus – that they be continued mostly intact for another two years. But, some could benefit from an intensive look, particularly on whether programs are achieving their desired result.

As I said, I would impose these requirements if I were king for a day. But I’m not, so I suspect the current approach will continue on into the future, which tends to underline another important fact: The legislature should take a hard look at spending if only because such a hard look could support for new revenue for programs like education, higher education, public safety and human services.