Welcome to the Truth, Mr. Ashford
Nashville Scene political writer Phil Ashford comments on the recent USA Today story blaming most states' fiscal problems on chronic overspending rather than the sluggish economy - which I commented on here on Monday - and makes some rather surprising statements. He also repeats a previously-published lie.

Ashford:

The general thesis of the USA Today survey is that the states themselves - and not the current economy - are to blame for their own financial woes, having increased spending and cut taxes too much during the boom years of the 1990s without correcting those trends to mirror the more gloomy economic period that's followed.

The judgment of Tennessee's performance during the survey's period is, of course, on the money. Don Sundquist, who was governor during the period, never really tackled the matter of controlling state spending, and state outlays increased by an above-average 6.7 percent during the period.

Of course, that is true. Sundquist over-spent, creating the state's four-year run of "budget shortfalls." The surprising thing is that Ashford said it. Because Ashford in past columns for the Scene rejected the notion that the state had a spending problem. In column after column over the past four years, Ashford repeatedly focused on the state's tax structure as the cause of the budget shortfalls.

In January 2001, Ashford said this:

The final alternative would be massive budget cutting to bring spending in line with available resources. This kind of simplistic solution has considerable appeal among the nincompoop legions who listen to talk radio, but is rather out-of-touch with the real world.

In July 2001, Ashford said this:

The reason [the proposed income tax] won't go away is simply the inadequacy of the current tax system, which hasn't kept pace with the changing nature of the economy.

In August 2001, Ashford said this:

Although the honk-troopers like to inveigh against waste and runaway government spending, Tennessee government is actually fairly lean, and most of the money goes to core services such as schools, roads, and public safety.

Also in August 2001, Ashford said this:

There just aren't many places to find more economies, meaning the pressure will tighten again for tax increases.

And in October 2001, Ashford wrote this:

Sundquist's assertion that the state's revenue picture is getting bleaker appears fairly sound. The state relies on sales taxes for the bulk of its revenue, and it was already struggling to meet projections before the September tragedies. The do-nothing faction, meanwhile, usually gives some lip service to the need to trim the budget, even though the discussion has been largely lacking in seriousness.

There seems to be no past record of Ashford blaming the state's fiscal problems on chronic over-spending. But now, writing about the USA Today story, he is. And more.

Says Ashford now:

The budget battles began when Sundquist sought to address the long-term adequacy of the state's taxing system, which he termed outmoded for a changing economy. Over the course of the struggle, a state that started out in good fiscal shape slid further and further out of control because Sundquist tolerated poor fiscal management as part of the broader fiscal war.

His last point - that Sundquist tolerated bad spending practices - is also new for Ashford, although Sundquist critics and income tax opponents often charged that Sundquist both deliberately overspent and spent down the state's reserves, and allowed big money-suckers like TennCare to spiral out of control in order to worsen the state's budget crisis and push the legislature closer to an income tax.

I can't find a record of Ashford every saying excessive spending was a major cause of the state's fiscal problems but, hey, welcome to the truth, Phil.

Of course, it's not surprising Ashford's view of spending cuts has shifted: he's a big Bredesen booster, having served as Bredesen's chief policy advisor from 1991-1998 while Bredesen was mayor of Nashville. Now that his man is in the governor's office, balancing the budget with big spending reductions rather than a tax increase, Ashford's changed his tune. It's called shifting with the prevailing winds.

It's not surprising, actually. The Scene admitted Ashford's bias way back in 1999 in this commentary-on-the-news-media, saying Ashford "is able to turn the common task of defending Mayor Bredesen into a performance art. With a nimble use of language, a knack for rousing, memorable phrases."

Now that Bredesen is governor, and cutting spending rather than raising taxes, Ashford happily dances to the new beat. A few years ago, Ashford derided and dismissed proposals for spending cuts as "massive budget cutting" and "lacking in seriousness" that envisioned cuts in the range of 5 percent of the budget. Now that Bredesen has balanced the budget with a 9 percent cut, Ashford calls it one of Bredesen's "successes" and says it "finally put the state on solid financial footing."

Understand, I'm agreeing with Ashford that overspending was the big reason for the state's fiscal crisis in the last four years of the Sundquist era. I find it refreshing that we're getting the truth from Ashford now. I just think it would would have been helpful for him to have written the truth a few years ago, too.

...

My own take on the USA Today story can be found here.

Now, about the lie I said Ashford's column repeats: It comes from Governing magazine, which provided a lot of the information in the USA Today piece. Ashford merely recycles it, without questioning whether it is true:

In the meantime, Governing notes the immeasurable losses Tennessee suffers from residents crossing the border to shop in other states. It quotes one high-level state employee, for example: "I'm about to buy a new car in Kentucky. I'll save about $2,400 in taxes. And though I feel a little twinge of guilt, there's no way they'll ever catch me."

As I explained here when the Governing story came out in February, it isn't true, on one and perhaps two levels:

...if the anecdote is real, then she's a very stupid high-level state employee - and the reporter failed to do the basic Journalism 101 job of verifying whether her assertions had any basis in fact. They don't. Here's why: When you buy a vehicle in another state, you pay sales taxes in that state. Then, when you register the car in Tennessee - and get Tennessee tags - you will be asked to fork over the difference between what you paid in the other state in sales taxes and what you would have paid in Tennessee's sales taxes if you had bought the car here. You will not be issued tags without paying that tax. And if you drive around without valid Tennessee tags for very long you will be tagged for big fines.

Ashford, a longtime observer of public policy, ought to have known it's virtually impossible to avoid paying the Tennessee sales tax when you buy a car.