Legislature '93: on a spending spree.

• Author: Richardson, Jeffrey
• Position: Excessive government spending

Critics call this year's legislative fiscal frenzy a tale of pork and promise.

Who were the winners in this year's legislative session? Senate President Rick Halford (R-Chugiak) said it was just fine with him if a lot of bills weren't enacted in the Legislature this year, and they weren't. House Speaker Ramona Barnes (D-Anchorage) made a comprehensive energy package one of her highest priorities, and it passed. Gov. Wally Hickel claimed victory for his legislative priorities: school and municipal funding programs.

But even as the state's political leaders toasted the ultimate success of their often rancorous session, critics -- including minority legislators -- were thrashing them for presiding over the biggest spending binge since 1984. The political and economic fallout from passage of the $2.5-billion operating budget (only slightly less than last year) and a $730-million capital budget (more than double last year's) may not be felt for some time.

The most immediate unanswered question is whether Gov. Hickel will exercise his fiscal independence in July to veto the budgets down to what many analysts believe would be a more responsible level. While Hickel threatened vetoes to leverage votes for some of his priorities this session, he has a big-ticket reputation.

Of particular concern to many is the fact that the state doesn't yet have in hand all the money it has appropriated. According to media reports, the state spending total is about $1 billion more than legislators themselves expect the state to receive in taxes and royalties next year.

Furthermore, the fiscal feeding frenzy, prompted by a $630-million windfall from an oil tax settlement, postponed for another year consideration of long-term state policies (i.e., taxes, spending cuts) to address a still-looming billion-dollar spending gap as Prudhoe Bay royalties decline.

And while some lawmakers took quick credit for cutting budgets of more than half the state's agencies, operational spending is actually $30 million higher than last year. Their boast is made possible because next year's debt service will drop by about $54 million, which means the cost of state government did in fact decline by about $24 million.

Budget Battles

Ironically, some of the agency cuts that were made may adversely affect the business and development communities. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources was hit especially hard, and lack of funding there may hold up permits, plans and land transfers needed to spur development projects.

A surprising number of conservatives outside the Legislature, in addition to some prominent voices from within, questioned whether the BP settlement money should more properly have been deposited in the budget reserve account -- created for just such an eventuality -- and budgeted in a more orderly fashion over a longer period.

Other legislators tried to assure constituents the spike in spending was for backlogged and badly needed projects, especially school...