March 3, 2008

The "unelected" legislative analyst

Jon Fleischman takes on Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill because (gasp) Hill has presented an alternative budget proposal that includes some tax increases.

Fleischman suggests that Hill -- he calls her the "unelected analyst" -- is wrong to offer legislators ideas about action they can take to balance the budget, rather than simply telling them why the budget is unbalanced. He is curiously silent about the cuts Hill proposes, which in many cases are deeper than those the governor has offered. And Fleischman doesn't seem to care that Hill's proposal, unlike anything proposed by the governor or any legislator, is actually balanced and would remain so for five years, given today's economic projections.

Fleischman is wrong about how Hill should be doing her job. The analyst's office makes policy recommendations all the time, almost all of them aimed at making government more efficient. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that -- or with her proposing an alternative budget. I serously doubt that Fleischman would be slamming her if she had proposed an "all cuts" budget and shown lawmakers how she thought it could be done. He is cloaking his ideological differences with Hill in the clothing of process.

Trying to hem Hill in by calling her "unelected" makes her sound like some regulator or judge who has overstepped her bounds. But Hill works for the Legislature. She has no power over state policy. Her job is to advise her bosses on whatever course of action her office thinks is best. And that appears to be exactly what she is doing here.

Posted by dweintraub on March 3, 2008 7:10 AM