Posted by
John R. LaPlante on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:05:30 PM
Government agencies are prone to mission creep, expanding far beyond their original boundaries. (What, for example, does the Rural Electrification Administration do now that nearly everyone is on the grid?) But public officials can make matters worse by institutionalizing funding for mission creep through tax policy.
Earlier in Minnesota this year, politicians in both major political parties toyed with the idea of dedicating a portion of sale tax revenues to the Department of Natural Resources and conservation projects. Peter J. Nelson of the Center of the American Experiment argues that dedicated funding streams is a bad idea.
It’s not that Nelson is against the environment. He’s a cross-country skier and hunter, for one thing, so he appreciates the value of a healthy natural environment.
Rather, the problem is one of fiscal management, setting priorities, and limits. “If we dedicate a set portion of the sales tax,” he writes, then conservation funding will be pegged to our overall level of consumer spending. Why on earth should the amount we spend on wetlands be inextricably linked to the amount we spend on TVs, refrigerators, and watches?”
Why indeed? Yet voters in other states have taken a similar path. The most prominent example may be Colorado’s Amendment 23.
Putting government spending, whether for education or conservation, or indeed, anything, is simply bad policy.