In documents rich with fuzzy phrases about spending cuts, Alaska business groups say we need to set priorities and make state government more efficient, affordable, transparent and sustainable.
It's as predictable as the lines of a play, but the groups need to change the script, put their expertise to work and offer some real guidance instead.
The latest letters and statements from the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, the Alaska Bankers Association, the Anchorage Economic Development Corp. and the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce are united in calling for spending reductions, but Sherlock Holmes would have trouble finding clues about what they have in mind.
This is the biggest deficiency in their collective advice and it's understandable. If one of these groups had said, "Let's cut $400 million from schools," it wouldn't go over well. But it is easy to sound the call for unidentified government cutbacks, as long as you leave the contentious details up to each person's imagination.
"State leaders must undergo a thorough review of all state-funded programs and services to continue to reduce overall spending," the Fairbanks chamber said. "Alaskans need a modest level and predictable role of state government," the bankers said. "State services must be prioritized," the state chamber of commerce said. "We hope you will work together to find ways to reduce spending without cutting so deeply that the economic situation worsens," the Anchorage Economic Development Corp. said.
If these groups want to provide leadership on budget cuts, and I believe they do, they must do more than instruct elected officials to spend less.
At a hearing in Fairbanks this year, someone said the state could start to solve its $3 billion budget gap by not buying new vehicles. I'm sure the state can save money that way, but that won't get us to $2.9 billion.
The state chamber letter, now signed by nearly four dozen groups and individuals, declares that "services that aren't a function of government must be eliminated." It's unfortunate that the letter doesn't name a single service to eliminate.
If there is no elimination list, just an undying belief that there must be worthless programs that someone else can identify, then the chamber should realize that empty talk weakens its credibility. If there is a list, let's see it.
Some people will excuse the lack of details by saying the governor and legislators are hired to make the tough calls. Plus, people who don't follow this closely have no idea of exactly what to cut. That's not convincing. Business people know how to get to the point in their own affairs and they can do the same with government.
I don't think anyone believes that all parts of the state budget are equally important or that it makes no difference what gets cut. If the groups haven't learned enough about the budget yet to offer detailed advice, they are the only ones who can correct that problem.
No one in Alaska who wants to be taken seriously can make an effective case for big budget cuts without specifics. The ambiguous language favored in this discussion is popular because it sends a vague message that doesn't trigger a backlash. It will fail, however, because budgets are tied to dollars, not word play.
We do our leaders and ourselves no favors by offering vague budget-cutting testimonials. When it is time to defend favorite parts of the budget, no one utters a blanket and ineffective endorsement of all spending. Instead, you will hear support for roads, Medicaid, schools, etc.
One of the few budget-cut particulars in these documents is the proposal by the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce that union salaries and benefits for state workers be decreased through negotiations. Give this group credit. Putting that on the table outlines the disagreement to come.
The Fairbanks statement also calls for "scrutiny" of the education funding formula, though it doesn't say if the number of students in each classroom should be increased, which is the vital statistic that most parents will care about.
Every dollar in the state budget has a defender in Alaska and there is no way to avoid provoking part of the populace when cuts are suggested. That doesn't mean business groups and other advocates for cutting the budget should stay silent. On the contrary, it's the reason they need to communicate clearly about what exactly they have in mind.
That will help clarify the real choices Alaskans face in balancing services and revenue.