Posted on: Monday, March 10, 2003

EDITORIAL
Social service 'savings' may in fact not be so

In times of serious budget shortfalls, it is unrealistic to expect any government agency or program to escape at least a little bit of the pain.

This applies to "nice-to-have" programs as well as "must-have" services such as education and social welfare. It is simply unrealistic to put a budget firewall around huge sections of the budget.

But it is equally unrealistic to think that budget cuts will have the same impact, no matter where they are applied. That is, that, say, a 5 percent cut in spending would have relatively the same impact no matter what the program or service.

In some areas, the "cost" of the cut may more than offset any temporary savings.

This thought comes up in the wake of warnings from social service advocates that budget trims of some $20 million over the next two years could cripple the state social safety net.

Yes, in an ideal world, the money should simply be restored. That might not be possible if the budget crunch is as severe as everyone says it is.

So, some cuts might be inevitable.

If that is to be the case, however, the analysis of how much should be cut and where must be far more sophisticated than simply looking at the impact on the bottom line of the current budget. That is shortsighted and quite possibly misleading.

Rather, any cut must be measured against the near-term and long-term cost of the service lost. In many cases, short-term savings produce greater costs downstream. This is particularly true in social service programs.

Just for example: Cutting preventative healthcare for infants is almost surely going to result in more expensive and draining emergency healthcare costs for those same children down the road.

In both cases, it will be taxpayers footing the bill.

So, as the Legislature moves forward in its efforts to balance the budget, it must keep in mind that the task is about much more than getting the books straight for this budget cycle alone.