The Spokane Spokesman-Review calls foul on the unnecessary complexity of the state budget, citing a recent Washington Research Council report. (We noted the report here.) The Sunday editorial looks at how legislators have created several dedicated funds, notably for health care and education, that are closely related to the state general fund (GFS). The dedicated accounts form part of what's called the Near General Fund State (NGFS). Because of the interplay between these funds and the general fund, it's often difficult for taxpayers to get a good read on the health of "the state budget" - whatever that means these days.
The separate accounts in question largely arose after the passage in 1993 of Initiative 601, which limited the growth of the GFS. The programs addressed by the separate accounts would reasonably be found in a general fund. By breaking them out and funding them from dedicated revenue sources, however, lawmakers could escape the spending limits that applied only to the GFS.
This kind of mischief adds to the complexity of state budgeting and detracts from the people's ability to keep an eye on their tax dollars. The Legislature mitigated the situation slightly in 2005 by extending the spending limits to those funds; that's how they came up with the NGFS.
As the S-R writes, it would be better to get rid of the dedication altogether and avoid the confusion. This WashACE report spells out the advantages.
