Fitzsimon File

Governor Mike Easley made some news recently when he called on the General Assembly to limit how much money it borrows for new buildings and other needs.

Not too long ago North Carolina had less debt that most states in the country. That’s not true anymore. In the last several years the state has issued billions of dollars worth of bonds for construction projects at university and community college campuses, to build prisons, buy land for parks and pay for clean water projects.

That includes a $3.1 billion bond approved by the voters a few years ago and another $468 million package passed by the General Assembly last session without a public vote.

The state now pays almost $500 million a year in debt service and there are calls for more bonds to pay for a huge backlog of needs, school construction, infrastructure for economic development, community colleges, etc. One study says the state has water and sewer needs of as much as $7 billion.

State Treasurer Richard Moore is worried about the rising amount of state debt and has been talking for months about capping it. Now Easley is too and wants a law that requires any bond of more than $25 million to go to the voters for approval.

Legislative leaders are not fond of that proposal, citing massive school construction needs and the backlog of water and sewer projects.

It is true that the state is still under the borrowing ceiling that Moore recommends and issuing bonds is a way to pay for important state needs and comes without the need to make immediate budget cuts or facing the wrath of the anti-tax crowd that comes from raising revenue.

But this whole debate raises obvious questions for those who seem so concerned about fiscal responsibility. Their position is that the state should not put off the full cost of building schools or prisons for years by borrowing money, that if the projects are needed now, they should be paid for now.

The question for Easley and Moore and others who are so bond averse is why they are not consistent with their pay now to save money later philosophy.

Does anyone doubt that a significant increase in substance abuse programs would save money in the long run, reducing the number of crimes committed by desperate addicts and reducing the number of people in prison for drug offenses?

Is not obvious that providing health care coverage to people without it would save money in the long run as people would be healthier overall and would be treated for illnesses early in the doctor’s office instead of later at the emergency room?

Does it not stand to reason that spending money now to help more mothers afford day care so they can go back to school or work will save money later as fewer people are on public assistance and instead are working and paying taxes?

Refusing to make investments in human service programs now means far greater financial and human costs in the long run. Yet Easley’s budget makes minimal investments and Moore has generally been silent on the issue.

Seems sort of simple that it’s better to spend money now to save money later. Someone ought to tell Easley and Moore that concept applies to human beings as well as buildings.

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Monday, February 28th, 2005 at 10:21 pm and is filed under Fitzsimon File. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.