Spending boosts carry no guarantee of improvement

IN politics, there’s a tendency to equate increased government spending with improvement. Yet data often paint a different picture. Without focus and constant re-evaluation of spending practices, increased funding may yield little more than the same problems at higher cost.

In a recent column, Joel Griffith, director of the tax and fiscal policy task force at the American Legislative Exchange Council, noted Oklahoma state government spending has increased substantially over the long term. Citing data from the National Association of State Budget Officers, Griffith notes Oklahoma’s state expenditures totaled $16.1 billion in FY 2017.

State government spending has increased at a clip that far exceeds inflation and population growth. Had it increased only to match inflation and population growth, Oklahoma government spending would have increased 56 percent since 2000. Instead, Griffith says, it increased 108 percent.

That translates to an additional $3.6 billion spent in 2017 beyond the amount spent in 2000; the cumulative increase throughout those years totaled $27 billion.

Has that extra government spending resulted in improved results in core areas?

According to the America’s Health Rankings report put out by the United Health Foundation, Oklahoma ranked 44th out of the 50 states on health measures in 2000. In 2017, the state ranked 43rd. The years in between included many where Oklahoma’s ranking was even lower.

According to the state Department of Health, the drug overdose rate in Oklahoma increased seven-fold from 1999 to 2013, and more recent figures show the overdose rate remains far above 1999 levels.

According to the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), a set of tests administered every two years to students across the country, 70 percent of Oklahoma fourth-graders could not read at grade level in 1998. In 2017, that figure was 67 percent.

According to FBI data, there were 497.8 violent crimes committed per 100,000 inhabitants in Oklahoma in 2000. In 2016, FBI figures showed Oklahoma’s violent crime rate was notably lower, 449.7 per 100,000 people, but state rates of homicide, rape and aggravated assault were still above the national average.

There are times when increased funding does generate significant improvement. A notable example can be seen on state roads. After decades of underfunding, roughly 1,200 of 6,800 state bridges were structurally deficient by 2005. Due to hundreds of millions in new funding directed to transportation needs in the years since, the number of structurally deficient bridges has fallen to 168 and officials expect to have replaced or repaired all such bridges within two more years. Transportation improvement was impeded when lawmakers began tapping road funds in recent years, but the state is still in a better place than in 2005.

But in other instances, increasing funding without altering practices can be of limited or no benefit. That’s why we have long supported corrections reforms that redirect nonviolent offenders to treatment rather than prison to lower costs and crime rates.

Looking at Oklahoma’s increased state government spending since 2000, it’s worth asking if taxpayers got their money’s worth. In too many instances, the answer remains “no.”