February 22, 2008
Back to Columns

Following Truman's Example
By Senator Mike Folmer

As I tackle my second state budget, I continue to focus on controlling state spending through enactment of my "Taxpayer Protection Act" (SB 707), which would limit annual increases in spending to a combination of population growth and inflation.  If my bill were law today, this year's budget growth would be 3.29% maximum - over $800 Million more.

Last year's budget battle had a frustrated Governor calling people names:  "What these imbeciles don't understand is that most cost drivers in a budget, you don’t control."  He called me "certifiable" because I was not able to support his spending plans.

Since that time, I have paid close attention to how the state spends tax moneys and I am even more convinced it's not how MUCH we spend, it's HOW we spend it.  We just don't prioritize.  It's like Christmas when your kids or grandkids want 40 things, but you can afford just four.  You don't love them any less by limiting what they want, you're just living within your means.  State government needs to do the same.

Fortunately, we have examples to follow.  One of the best is when Harry Truman was a US Senator in 1941.  With fighting in both Europe and Asia and the United States about to be drawn in, Senator Truman started looking at how tax moneys were being spent on defense contracts – billions of dollars worth.  Soon the "Truman Committee" found ways to save millions of dollars on programs – without compromising our national defense.

We have opportunities to do the same with state programs.  Last December, the Senate Education Committee and the Senate Communications & Technology Committee held a joint hearing on "Classrooms for the Future."  This program buys school laptops and related services for school districts:  $20 Million last year, $90 Million this year, and a proposed $90 Million next year.

While this program is cited as a way to improve public education, questions have been raised about it.  At the same time these questions are being asked, other education initiatives are being overlooked.  For example, three alternative education demonstration projects (Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Lebanon) were curtailed and/or cut:  from $43 Million last year, to $17.5 Million this year, to zero next year.

In my ongoing efforts to ensure that we are squeezing every penny from each tax dollar, I asked how Lebanon’s alternative education program was impacting test scores:  students' math test scores improved 49.4% and reading test scores improved 39.6%.  Should this program be continued?  Should it be cut?  Can it operate with less state money?

Which program is more deserving of tax moneys:  laptops in the classroom or alternative education programs?  Is it possible to fund both?  Should both be funded?  Should one be cut in favor of the other?

To answer these questions, I believe we should follow Senator Truman's example by asking tough questions before appropriating any tax moneys for state programs.