Constant Conservative

South Dakota, like not a few other states (probably all of them, if we were only to know the facts) is looking at a contracting revenue stream from taxes. This means that less money will be available than anticipated for the next budget year. Governor Rounds has already stated that (according to radio news reports) it will be difficult for South Dakota to work with what he termed essentially flat sales and excise tax revenues since there is not much which can be cut from the budget.

I believe that the issue here is the meaning of essential. Governor Rounds, like most politicians, has a very hard time deciding that anything which government does directly or funds is non-essential. With a $3,500,000,000 budget for FY 2009, I simply cannot see things the way Governor Rounds does.

Let me put it like this. I also have my FY 2009 budget made up. Then, based on the possibility of a contracting revenue stream, I worked up a second budget for FY 2009. The second budget is about 57% the size of the first one. However, despite the difference, I would still be able to properly care for my family, any outstanding financial obligations which I have and even make a bit of progress with some projects on which I am currently working. To put it another way, I did not cut it down to the “bare necessities” — otherwise known as the “essentials.”

Do not get me wrong: I am certain that South Dakota’s budget is considerably more complex than my own. I also realize that between my wife and I, we have complete authority to change the budget. The South Dakota budget is more complicated and of major interest to hundreds if not thousands of government employees.

With those caveats, I still think that the hope for change regarding the state’s budget rests firmly on a number of adults going back to the definition of essential. For starters, one could do worse than to apply a constitutionality test to all current policies and programs.