Stand firm on pork cuts

Last week the state House of Representatives took a whack at two of the most indefensible examples of previous budgetary pork that totaled more than $32 million. The House should insist on its reallocation of nearly $24.5 million of those funds when the budget conferees assemble this week.

The most controversial of the pair is the competitive grants program, which detractors, with good reason, have labeled the legislative "slush fund." The grants program, which operates under an appointive committee, currently has some $18.5 million in previously allocated funds. Last week, the House voted to reallocate some $10 million from that program to more pressing budgetary needs.

Some $14.5 million previously designated for regional farmers' markets also was reallocated by the House to the general fund. It should be noted that the funds for a new statewide farmer' market are intact.

At issue is whether in these tough financial times the state can justify spending millions of dollars for regional farmers' markets, particularly when a number of communities have established such markets on their own.

Unfortunately, according to the governor's office, a legal question may have to be resolved about reallocating those funds. Chief of Staff Scott English tells us there is a previous separate piece of legislation that seemingly prohibits budget writers from modifying the allocation. He questions that such legislation can tie the hands of lawmakers, current and future, from taking needed budgetary action.

According to a spokesperson for the House Ways and Means Committee, some $4 million of the reallocation will go for needed school bus expenses. The Associated Press said $5 million will go to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism for tourism-related projects.

While the governor has been calling for an end of the competitive grants program, Mr. English characterized last week's House cuts as "a positive development." Let's hope it remains that way.