Why you can’t read half the state budget

-A A +A

The South Carolina state budget is split into two major pieces, part 1A and part 1B. While both parts are excruciatingly boring to read, the first part, 1A, is at least understandable. At least it looks like a budget.
Each agency has its own chart of line items showing how much money is allocated to each agency, program, function, etc. That’s why, when members of the news media talk about “the budget,” they’re almost always talking about that portion of the budget they can read, part 1A.
Part 1B is a very different thing. At 197 pages and 112,836 words long – roughly the length of a full-sized book – it’s virtually impossible to read for anyone who hasn’t been shown how to read it.
The problem, of course, is that 99.99 percent of taxpayers haven’t been shown how to read part 1B of the South Carolina state budget. And no level of transparency will change that. It doesn’t matter much whether part 1B is put online as soon as lawmakers pass it – if taxpayers can’t read it, it might as well be a secret.
So, what exactly is part 1B?
It’s is a list of budget provisos that in some cases appropriates funds and in others stipulate how agencies and programs may spend funds.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are allocated in 1B, the great majority of which are dedicated to such highly questionable items as tourism marketing, studies for the feasibility of new roads, and regional economic development nonprofits. Here are just a few:
u Proviso 33.34 is the GOP alternative to plan to Obamacare – a massive giveaway to hospitals for reasons as yet unexplained.
u Proviso 50.22 authorizes the Department of Commerce to use $300,000 for an entity called the Council on Competitiveness to “provide funds for existing business economic development activities.” Inexplicably, another proviso , 118.17, authorizes $300,000 for the same program.
u Proviso 117.7 seems like a good idea until you actually read it. This would prohibit state agencies and the like from increasing fees unless it’s done by statute (i.e. by the General Assembly).
Unfortunately, the proviso carves out a number of exceptions to the prohibition – most notably higher education institutions and government health-care facilities. No doubt more exceptions will be added, making the proviso completely useless.
If anything, the prohibition should apply especially to state universities, since these are notorious for simply raising tuition as a way of avoiding tough budget decisions. In any case, fines and fees are a form of tax, and state agencies shouldn’t have the right to raise taxes absent authorization of the General Assembly. Or, to say the same thing another way, the General Assembly shouldn’t be allowed to avoid responsibility for tax increases.
u Proviso 117.34 allows the State Transportation Infrastructure Bank or Railroad Commission to issue grants (funded by taxpayers) to develop “innovative transportation technology.”
u Proviso 118.17 is full of goodies for state agencies and programs. Three examples are: $220,000 for a university center in Greenville: nearly $8 million to the Department of Commerce for the Deal Closing Fund (handouts for corporations that promise to invest and/or create jobs); and $1.6 million for the Lexington County Maintenance Complex.
Much of this money doesn’t even show up in the budget documents most people look at in part 1A and think of as the budget.
Furthermore, these provisos aren’t scrutinized and debated the way line items are in part 1A.
And since provisos in part 1B are only in effect for one year, lawmakers generally carry them over from year to year – making them in effect perpetual laws and/or spending items that exist wholly outside the public view.
So, what’s the solution? Simple: Eliminate part 1B and give all money that would be appropriated by it back to taxpayers. Some may argue that not all funding items in part 1B are illegitimate. Maybe, but if that’s true, lawmakers ought to budget for those items in the General Fund, where they can be deciphered and honestly debated.
Part 1B has long since become a gigantic hiding place for potentially controversial spending. That is not a legitimate function of a state budget.
But since there is little to no chance that South Carolina lawmakers would actually return the money tied up in part 1B to taxpayers, the least they could do is put its appropriations where they belong – in part 1A – so that at least the public and media can see what they are.

Dillon Jones is a policy analyst at the
S.C. Policy Council.