The GPPF: Rumors of a Failed Session are Unfounded:

Georgia’s spending process, however, could benefit from a healthy dose of fiscal conservatism. Something is terribly wrong when one of the wealthiest counties in the state, Cobb, is the leading recipient of pork projects. Among the more than $10 million of state taxpayer dollars designated for Cobb was $8 million for an unnamed charter school, $2.5 million for an arts center and grants for, among other things, a high school athletic program, and school laptop computers and roof repairs.

If Cobb County can afford these expenses, why are state taxpayers subsidizing the wealthy residents of Cobb? Clinch and Wheeler, two of the poorest counties in the state, received no local grants from the state. Don’t they have any unmet needs? Were they too proud to ask? Did their elected officials vote the wrong way on a certain issue?

The issue is not to single out Cobb County. Nearly everyone plays this game, and local projects are sometimes defensible. A capital investment in the port in Savannah, while it certainly helps the citizens of Chatham County, also benefits Georgia’s overall economy. If one of the poorest counties in the state needs help meeting certain basic health and safety needs, there is an argument for the state to step in to assist.

But how do we decide what “projects” are legitimate and which are “pork?” Georgia should adopt a set of stringent tests to limit this practice before someone builds a “bridge to nowhere.”

A good start would be to ask these questions of every proposal: Is this a core function of government or could it best be funded in the private sector? Is this a state or local responsibility? Does this project benefit a broad group of citizens or a special interest? Is there evidence this is a local responsibility that cannot be met because it would place an undue burden on local government? Do local elected officials justifiably support the project? Has the project gone through an open debate to determine that it merits priority?

Sunshine is a proven preventive measure for spending abuse. Rep. Jill Chambers led the way this year by bringing the same focus on disclosure and transparency to state spending as she has with the MARTA budget. Her legislation won unanimous approval in the Legislature. It requires an annual summary of all state contracts of $20,000 or more in electronic format so citizens will be able, as President Bush put it when he signed similar federal legislation, “to Google their tax dollars.”

1 Comment »