The committee report before us today represents the sincere work of House conferees faced with the difficult task of balancing the myriad of sensitive policy and political issues inherent to any budget bill, but made especially pressing by the fiscal realities that confront us. A conservative member who, like me, is considering voting against this proposed budget must act with great circumspection in determining if this is in fact the correct path.
Prudence is a core political virtue and the disparagement of ˝ a loaf in pursuit of unattainable ideological purity can be the cause of much mischief, making compromise impossible and thus imperiling the valid task of balancing the diverse interests found within any polity. With this in mind any conservative member inclined to vote no on this report must be careful to act only upon sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences and having given due consideration to the fact that, human beings and human societies are inherently imperfect, and just as no perfect social order is possible, no budget that must consider a broad range of interests will ever be fully satisfactory to everyone.
We must not then reject this budget out of a fanciful adherence to an abstract ideology detached from the prudential considerations that our office as public servants demand we consider. With this in mind conservatives who are considering voting against this budget must give due consideration to a number of salient arguments offered by its supporters, I will mention only four:
First, we are all keenly aware of the obligation of the legislature to pass a budget; failure to do so would have grave consequences that cannot be wished away. At some point, in some fashion a budget bill that can receive 63 votes in the House, 21 in the Senate and the Governor’s signature must be arrived at in order for vital functions of government to proceed. I agree conservatives should give due weight to this argument.
Second, the budget before us, it has been argued, should be looked at in total, not just through the lens of the growing SGF, but in the broader context of the All Funds budget which in fact decreases under this proposal. Conservatives should also examine this argument carefully and respectfully.
Third, it is further argued that the budget before us is a work of significant compromise with a recalcitrant Senate that is disinclined to enact serious fiscal reform and as such represents the best deal possible as a practical reality. This is an important argument that no conservative should dismiss out of hand.
And finally, some argue, were this budget to fail the most likely result is not an opportunity to vote on a more fiscally responsible proposal, but the empowerment of a renewed coalition of those who wish to add rather than subtract from the proposal we are considering today. This argument, I know, bears greatly on the thinking of many conservative members, who fear as I do allowing to adherence to a theoretical best case scenario to cause us to allow to slip through our grasp the best practically available result.
I ask every conservative member to consider these, and all other reasonable arguments in favor of a yes vote carefully and in good faith. I can say for my part that I have attempted to do so with an open mind and with humility, ready to concede that my own conclusions may indeed be in error.
Having done my level best, to consider all of these things I am left at the end of the day with one overriding concern. Many of you I would imagine have seen the great movie A Man for All Seasons which considers a potion of the life of English statesman and martyr Sir Thomas More. It is a movie of many memorable lines; but as I have wrestled with the decisions we are faced with tonight one of those lines in particular has continually come back to me, and it is this: “I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”
There is no doubt that the legislature has a public duty to pass a budget. Yet this public duty of the legislature as a whole quite obviously cannot impose an obligation upon individual members to vote for just any budget. Nor, would I argue, can it impose a duty upon a member to vote for a budget that violates a core commitment. For me the point of conscience arises out of the commitment I have made in repeated public pronouncements and quite explicitly in my most recent campaign that I would not support expenditures in excess of available tax revenue, nor SGF increases of greater than inflation plus population growth. To say one thing while meaning or doing another is indeed a short road to chaos.
Still two further things must be considered, was the commitment I and perhaps others made correct, or was it made rashly based upon incorrect assumptions. And second has new information emerged that would justify deviating from such a commitment. In my own case I must answer these questions in the negative.
The nature and extent of the budget challenge we face this year should come as no surprise to anyone, I certainly knew it when I made the commitments I have made; it is the natural product of years of overspending and the blind acceptance and expenditure of federal stimulus dollars. Both of which I have not merely warned about, but have repeatedly over the years offered legislation and floor amendments to prevent. But of course, “I told you so” is not a policy proscription that abrogates the actual hard work of governing. Still, no new information or argument has convinced me that adherence to the simple principle of living within our means is inconsistent with the mandates of practical politics; indeed if it is then we are very far indeed down the road to our demise.
Living within our means is not an unrealistic goal, a perusal of the headlines tells us we can do better. Indiana passed a budget that spends less than available tax revenue, leaving a $1 billion surplus, while reducing the corporate income tax 24% and creating a process for returning cash reserves to the taxpayers. Such results are attainable here, if we have the political courage to make it so.
No argument for this budget can overcome the simple fact that we will spend $6.058 billion despite estimated available tax revenue of $5.8 billion; and that we will spend approximately $380 million more SGK dollars in FY 2012 than in FY 2011 and $785 million more than FY 2010. For me to vote for such a budget would be to violate core campaign pledges and as such to violate my private conscience in the name of public duty. To do so would not be honest and would be a disservice to our state, it would indeed be a short route to chaos. I urge each of you to examine your own conscience and to vote accordingly.
