It was sausage-making time at city hall earlier this week, as D.C. Council members deliberated over Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s $10 billion 2012 budget proposal. They fussed and cussed. They twisted and tweaked committee spending plans. With the surprisingly steady guidance of Council Chairman Kwame R. Brown, by the end of the meeting, they seemed on track to compromise on some of the most controversial issues, including cuts to social service programs and tax increases.
“The city is going to walk away in a stronger position,” Brown told me, conceding the final budget to be voted on next week “won’t be perfect.”
Legislators appeared ready to reject many of the mayor’s onerous tax increases, including that rate increase affecting individuals with annual incomes greater than $200,000. Council members also have decided to restore cuts to the homeless shelter program and prevent an anticipated dip in the city’s police force.
Don’t think the money for those items comes purely from finding waste in Gray’s plan. The unapologetic spendthrifts have fixated on imagined revenues.
They have received word that Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi next month expects to adjust revenue estimates upward. They have been told the amount could be “significant.” The economy has begun to recover. In February, he projected an additional $105 million in revenues. Gray promptly spent $75 million on public education.
Frugalistas, like me, equate the council’s actions with counting chickens before they hatch — never a smart move.
Still, council members defended the plan as responsible and appropriate. Jack Evans, head of the Committee on Finance and Revenue, called it a “pre-emptive strike.” He said the legislature’s actions would set by law priorities for any additional funds. “It would be foolhardy for the council not to do this.”
But council members who collectively had a $350 million unfunded wish list also have to be reined in. Consequently, Brown proposed a formula that would mandate 50 percent of new revenues be used to replenish the city’s reserve fund, which has been nearly depleted because it was used to lessen the recession’s blow; 25 percent would go to assisting the city’s “needy” populations, and 25 percent would help forgo taxes, prevent public safety reductions and meet infrastructure demands.
“I would have preferred 100 percent went to the reserve account,” said Brown. “If we had said that we might have had three votes.”
He said the plan would send the right signal to residents and Wall Street while providing an opportunity for a compromise among council members on contentious issues. “It might be the first time you have Jack Evans and Marion Barry agreeing on something,” Brown joked.
That “Kumbaya” moment may bring temporary satisfaction. But relying too heavily on anticipated revenues to balance the budget means the council would have failed, once again, to realistically define the scope, role and responsibility of government. Being all things to all people simply is not sustainable.
Jonetta Rose Barras’s column appears on Monday and Wednesday. She can be reached at [email protected].
