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’d be much more apt to support tax increases if the Oregon Legislature would pay attention to getting the most bang for the buck out of current programs.

I could say the same about Congress, but, way out here in the West, it appears to be a useless errand.

So far, an emphasis on what I call “performance-based budgeting” is sadly lacking or perhaps even non-existent in Oregon. The best indication is that, since Senate Bill 964 passed in the 2011 legislative session (it was a bill proposed by my firm’s client, Youth Villages, that would install a performance-based system in foster care contracts), nothing – NOTHING – has happened. So, a law on the books is being ignored, with no penalty for the inaction.

In an earlier post, I argued against what I called “the three S’s” of current budget processes, which I described this way.

Supplanting: This is what occurs when new money comes into state government to fund a specific program or programs, then legislators take “general funds” out from behind the new money, thus neutering the purpose and effect of the new.

Sweeping: In some ways, this is more egregious than supplanting because, when it occurs, it violates the will of the taxpayers who provided the money in the first place.

Consider this example. What legislators have done in recent years is levy a tax on commercial health insurance premiums to create a repository of “state money” that can be used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid. To support the premium tax, legislators said the money would go to help put kids on insurance if their families could not afford it on their own.

What happened?

Without much, if any, hesitancy, legislators said they intended to “sweep” the money to fund other programs, thus not keeping faith with assurances made to taxpayers.

Sojourning: I stretch to get to this “S” as a way to indicate that, in many cases, new money “sojourns” in its intended place for only two years, if that, then becomes just general money for use wherever legislators want to deploy it. Thus, the money sojourns in its location only temporarily.

Avoiding these traps would involve something which does not occur now – transparency in budgeting processes.

Taxpayers would know where state tax money goes and whether it stays there to keep faith with the purposes for which the money was raised in the first place.

On top of this, legislators should install “performance-based budgeting” in all programs, just as was enacted in SB 964. Require managers to announce the outcomes the programs will achieve with assigned dollars and, then, if the outcomes are achieved, allow the programs to remain in place or even grow.

But, if the programs fail to achieve outcomes, give them one warning, then, if outcomes still are not produced, terminate the programs.

If the “three S’s” went away and if performance-based budgeting existed, I would be far more willing, as one taxpayer, to give state government more money for important government programs.

Now, the risk is that tax payments become “just money” and it is business as usual for government, not business designed to produce results. So, for me, no new taxes until budget processes improve.