Faulty View of Full Funding Fuels Political Fights | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Mitch Kokai, who is an associate editor for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

    RALEIGH  -  Few public policy terms are more likely to induce a reflexive groan from this observer than "full funding."

    Despite the fact that the term has no meaning, politicians from both major parties and partisans of various ideological stripes tend to use it regularly when discussing budget issues. "Our budget plan includes full funding for community college enrollment." "We're rallying to restore full funding for the schools."

    If "full funding" were simply imprecise or inaccurate, the harm might not amount to much. But the term carries a connotation that can skew perceptions of just what's at stake during debates about differences of opinion on dollars-and-cents issues.

    Ask any normal person for a definition of "full funding," and you're likely to get some variation of this answer: the amount of money needed to do the job. By implication, any level of funding less than "full" funding means the funded entity will not have enough money to do the job properly. Perhaps the job will be performed poorly. Perhaps those entrusted to do the job will face more stress and aggravation because they're forced to do more with less.

    Note that, without qualifications, the term "full funding" also implies agreement about the proper level of funding. There's no discussion of criteria or standards used to determine whether funding is full, less than full, or overflowing.

    This is why a policymaker ought to be careful about using the term. To push for "full funding" for an agency or program means buying into the notion of a set, agreed-upon level of "full funding." If full funding for program X is $50 million, then budget writers better agree to spend $50 million for that program. If not, program X's advocates will complain about the damage likely to be inflicted by a "cut" from the "full funding" level.

    These complaints might be valid if the elusive creature known as a fully funded government program actually existed. It doesn't.

    Instead, "full funding" represents a form of public policy shorthand. It's useful to look at the full picture to understand how that shorthand shortchanges understanding of the budget picture.

    When government agencies develop budgets, the process usually starts with the head of an agency seeking input from her subordinates about proposals for funding in the next budget year. How much will it cost to operate existing programs in the next year? Should any new costs be added to the total to reflect additional employees, extra programs or initiatives, or higher operating costs? Should any costs be subtracted because programs have ended or employee positions have been cut?

    Setting aside for now the merits and demerits of this type of budgeting process, the next step involves agency recommendations heading to the administration's chief budget writer. In the case of North Carolina state government, the governor is the official budget director. The head of the Office of State Budget and Management is his deputy.

    Guided by the governor's priorities - and with varying degrees of input from the chief executive himself, depending on the governor's interest in detail - the OSBM budget team sifts through agency recommendations to develop a proposed budget. Some agencies might get much of what they requested, others might see much less, while it's possible that the governor could dictate that a particular agency should get more money than its top administrator had sought.

    Once this work is completed, the governor submits his budget proposal to the General Assembly. Here's where the "full funding" language tends to emerge in the debate. As lawmakers dissect the governor's budget proposals, those who argue for "full funding" typically mean full funding of the governor's budget proposal.

    Note that this proposal does not result from some scientific formula. There is no algebraic equation that says "full funding" results from adding x to y or multiplying w by z.

    Instead the governor's budget involves prioritization of public policy preferences. The governor's team has some expectation of the amount of money state government will have available to spend in a given budget year. Given that constraint, the administration splits available revenue among competing government interests.

    Meanwhile, the General Assembly has its own priorities, and members of the N.C. House and Senate bear the nickname "lawmakers" because they are empowered to make the laws, including determining the budget. If any party in state budget negotiations has a legitimate claim on settling the proper amount of "full funding" for a particular program or agency, the General Assembly certainly has as strong a claim - if not stronger - than the governor.

    When the governor and state legislative leaders have different ideas about the proper level of state government spending - as was the case for North Carolina in 2011 and 2012, with Democrat Beverly Perdue squaring off against a Republican-led General Assembly - misuse of the term "full funding" can paint a false picture of the state budget debate.

    Perdue's partisan pals promulgated the notion that Republicans hurt the state by failing to provide "full funding" for various state programs. What they really meant was they didn't like the fact that Republicans' policy preferences and priorities didn't match Perdue's.

    That clash of ideas even extended into the first year of Republican Gov. Pat McCrory's administration, as he and his GOP counterparts in the legislature had to contend with Democrats' complaints that Republicans were failing to provide "full funding" - especially for education - set out in the so-called "continuation budget," a document Perdue left as a parting gift to her political foes on her way out the door after her single term in office.

    In the real world, an agency or program gets "full funding" when it gets the money spelled out in the budget approved by lawmakers. Those who say they are rallying for "full funding" are instead asking elected officials to abandon their own policy preferences and adopt someone else's.

    One could say they are full of it.