Great Ideas Don’t Automatically Turn Into Results
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Even though there is more attention being given to the matter of needing to fix the Nevada budget system – there is a long way to go in bringing about meaningful results. Geoffrey Lawrence of the Nevada Policy Research Institute has been doing an outstanding job of putting on the table a significantly better mouse-trap, but getting the people who need to beat a path to that doorway is going to take some doing. His third installment on the details of how to go about implementing a “Budgeting For Outcomes” presents a very solid case, with a real-life example of how Washington state established a model for us to follow in setting up a priority-oriented, transparent and greatly more effective budget process. (I would highly recommend for new readers connecting with the Part I and Part II posts which offer the background to assist in understanding this more effective budget establishing system.)
Played out against a backdrop of a majority party who are more interested in expanding tax revenue than reforming spending however, getting a new budget-setting process like “Budgeting For Outcomes” is going to take some serious heavy-lifting. Voters need to catch the fever in regard to fixing the misguided system which operates now on a one-way, fast-track escalator to more state spending. That “fever” needs to be strong enough to be contagious for those who get elected to also do some sweating.
As a member of the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group, which Lawrence refers to as not being a “Budgeting For Outcomes” group that can substitute for the necessary working team to carry out the process, I would agree with his assessment that what we’ve been doing won’t match up with what this process calls for. Although I’m not exactly certain what we’re going to end up with (even though we’re down to our last meeting on May 14th) – I would have a hard time imagining that what we might come up with fitting what I understand this process being about. Perhaps if there had been some motivation on getting a handle on state spending before the Vision Stakeholder Group began its work, there might have been something included along the way that might have assisted in coming up with a more priority-driven spending focus.
As it appears to be turning out, the more likely outcome from the Vision Stakeholders will take the form of really thinking a bunch of areas that need lots of spending should be funded with lots of more funding... Our Quality of Life, as Nevadans, will be greatly enhanced and our state government will require lots more revenue to make it all possible. We also will probably be thinking that our Vision for a better Nevada will involve getting lots more money from Washington, D.C. – even if we might need to raise our state government income to be able to acquire the money we think is slipping away because of not being able to make the matches.
The details of what might be our “Vision” for Nevada’s 5, 10 and 20 year timeframes into the future aren’t finalized and actually we only have a vague outline of what our consultant is going to tell us we thought we should have included. With a more formalized proposal of what is going to be up for voting at the May 14th meeting, we will be able to have a better concept of what things might look like for the proposal we’re going to move forward with.
It’s going to take voters who give their vision to the people they elect in order for the inspiration of Nevadan’s getting their money’s worth from the taxes they give to the state. No matter which way you cut it, November 2010 is going to be a critical and pivotal point of time for staying on the same track that we are on (growing bigger and less fiscally responsible government) or changing to a limited government that recognizes its boundaries and the appropriate role of the private sector filled with opportunities and based on self-reliant citizens who are able to live their lives without government’s controls and burden.
Even though there is more attention being given to the matter of needing to fix the Nevada budget system – there is a long way to go in bringing about meaningful results. Geoffrey Lawrence of the Nevada Policy Research Institute has been doing an outstanding job of putting on the table a significantly better mouse-trap, but getting the people who need to beat a path to that doorway is going to take some doing. His third installment on the details of how to go about implementing a “Budgeting For Outcomes” presents a very solid case, with a real-life example of how Washington state established a model for us to follow in setting up a priority-oriented, transparent and greatly more effective budget process. (I would highly recommend for new readers connecting with the Part I and Part II posts which offer the background to assist in understanding this more effective budget establishing system.)
Played out against a backdrop of a majority party who are more interested in expanding tax revenue than reforming spending however, getting a new budget-setting process like “Budgeting For Outcomes” is going to take some serious heavy-lifting. Voters need to catch the fever in regard to fixing the misguided system which operates now on a one-way, fast-track escalator to more state spending. That “fever” needs to be strong enough to be contagious for those who get elected to also do some sweating.
As a member of the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group, which Lawrence refers to as not being a “Budgeting For Outcomes” group that can substitute for the necessary working team to carry out the process, I would agree with his assessment that what we’ve been doing won’t match up with what this process calls for. Although I’m not exactly certain what we’re going to end up with (even though we’re down to our last meeting on May 14th) – I would have a hard time imagining that what we might come up with fitting what I understand this process being about. Perhaps if there had been some motivation on getting a handle on state spending before the Vision Stakeholder Group began its work, there might have been something included along the way that might have assisted in coming up with a more priority-driven spending focus.
As it appears to be turning out, the more likely outcome from the Vision Stakeholders will take the form of really thinking a bunch of areas that need lots of spending should be funded with lots of more funding... Our Quality of Life, as Nevadans, will be greatly enhanced and our state government will require lots more revenue to make it all possible. We also will probably be thinking that our Vision for a better Nevada will involve getting lots more money from Washington, D.C. – even if we might need to raise our state government income to be able to acquire the money we think is slipping away because of not being able to make the matches.
The details of what might be our “Vision” for Nevada’s 5, 10 and 20 year timeframes into the future aren’t finalized and actually we only have a vague outline of what our consultant is going to tell us we thought we should have included. With a more formalized proposal of what is going to be up for voting at the May 14th meeting, we will be able to have a better concept of what things might look like for the proposal we’re going to move forward with.
It’s going to take voters who give their vision to the people they elect in order for the inspiration of Nevadan’s getting their money’s worth from the taxes they give to the state. No matter which way you cut it, November 2010 is going to be a critical and pivotal point of time for staying on the same track that we are on (growing bigger and less fiscally responsible government) or changing to a limited government that recognizes its boundaries and the appropriate role of the private sector filled with opportunities and based on self-reliant citizens who are able to live their lives without government’s controls and burden.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 4/28/2010 5:20 AM 
Categories: Nevada Budget
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election Government
Categories: Nevada Budget
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election Government
Comments