Education bluster helps no one

By Ed Simpson

Missouri Gov. Bob Holden is being disingenuous with the people, certainly not a rare event in politics and, from his point of view, perfectly understandable.

But the fact is that the governor is trying to frame the budget debate in such a way that not only are people excluded from the decision-making, but that the only possible outcome is to have winners and losers.

Normally, the whole win-lose thing is bad; the goal is win-win. I get some of what I want, you get some of what you want, and everybody goes home satisfied, if not happy.

In the case of Holden and his plan to come up with $1 billion to flesh out the state's budget, he is playing hardball in a game he is likely to lose.

Last week, Holden announced a plan to slash $259 million in state aid for elementary and secondary education and $91 million for higher education. Here is how his office released the news to the public: "Gov. Bob Holden today urged support for his plan to prevent cuts to Missouri school districts, colleges and universities during the current fiscal year. Holden said cuts could be avoided if the legislature authorizes tobacco securitization by the middle of February. The possible cuts total $259 million to elementary and secondary education and $91 million to higher education in Missouri." Notice the wording here: "his plan to prevent cuts." That seems to imply that some outside, invading force is causing the cuts and that only courageous action by the governor can "save" the schools. In fact, the opposite is true - the cuts belong totally to the governor. They are his idea, and the figures came from his budget office.

Under the Missouri Constitution, the governor has few restrictions, but one of them is cutting education in the middle of a budget year: "The governor shall not reduce any appropriation for free public schools, or for the payment of principal and interest on the public debt." Public schools and debt are the only restrictions. Holden may order "withholdings" from any other agency or institution, including his own office. I am sure Holden could find many millions of dollars that could be cut from elementary and secondary schools that are separate from direct appropriations and therefore legal, if not necessarily the right thing to do.

But that is not what he announced. What he announced and what his administration sent to every lawmaker in the state was a district-by-district breakdown of what across-the-board cuts would mean. According to the state, Neosho schools could lose $1.1 million, Joplin could get hit for $656,000, and Carthage could see $927,000 go away.

Holden, of course, does not want to go down as the governor who cut education, so he has devised a way out: "tobacco securitization." That is a meaningless, $10 phrase that is as disingenuous as the announcement on cutting education. Securitization basically means borrowing money on the expected proceeds from the settlement with tobacco companies.

Let's put aside the argument, which I lost long ago, that the money should be used for what the states said it would be used for: health care and anti-smoking programs. In this case, there is a good legal argument that "securitization" would not stand a legal challenge in Missouri.

Under state law, the only way the state can incur debt is with a dedicated source of money, usually approved by a vote of the people. That is why you see bond issues come on the ballots.

Theoretically, the tobacco settlement could be dedicated to paying back the debt. The problem is the definition of "source." There are no guarantees on the settlement. Companies could go out of business; cities could follow St. Louis' lead and try to glom onto a portion, which would reduce what goes to the state. Any number of things could happen.

That means the general revenue of the state government is the only real source of "security" for the loan, and that is a no-no.

Holden is clearly trying to muscle the legislature into approving the "securitization" plan, which, in turn, would let him "save" education. It is a scare tactic and should be treated as such.

I am not saying that education should automatically be spared in budget discussions. Education is a significant portion of the state's budget, and keeping it off the table would mean much deeper slices in other areas of government, many of them important to people around the state.

But issuing misleading statements to the public, failing to disclose the full story and offering plans that may or may not be legal are not the way to solve problems. Holden is a Democrat facing a Republican legislature. That must be frustrating. But I assume the telephones in Jefferson City still work.

Barring that, Holden could always walk over and chat with the legislative leadership, and together, they might come up with a plan that will actually bring the state together, not create winners and losers.

Ed Simpson is the editor of The Joplin Globe.