It's Time for North Carolina to Lead on Budget Transparency

North Carolina’s “First in Freedom” budget, passed last year, had many wins, notably tax cuts for individuals of all income levels. Some parts of the budget, however, did not merit celebration. 

Good budgeting includes addressing the issue of transparency, especially regarding the ever-growing special provisions, commonly referred to as “pork spending.” 

The November budget was loaded with it, and the June 2022 budget revisions only piled on more. Those are special — often politically motivated — projects requested by legislators, usually for their local districts, at the expense of the entire state. 

Some examples from the November 2021 budget include: 

• $100,000 to Topsail Beach for equipment
• $10,000 to the city of Sanford for a mural
• $12,000 to the town of Bryson City for an ATV
• $70,000 to Project Healing Waters Fly Fishing, Inc. for equipment
• $1 million for a playground in Brunswick County
• $2.5 million to improve Rutherford County’s Forest City soccer complex

These projects would benefit local communities, but this pork spending is used by elected leaders to bolster their political standing in their districts. It’s an inappropriate use of taxpayer money. 

Not all local communities receive funding for such projects. Instead, these undertakings are politically motivated, diverting taxpayer dollars from more productive purposes to secure their political power. Moreover, such pork projects take away jobs from private businesses as the private sector responds by reducing investment and production. 

Solutions to this escalating issue have already been proposed. In our state, efforts have been largely spearheaded by retired Rep. Verla Insko (D-Orange). 

In 2017, Insko filed House Bill 83, which would change the budget process so requesting members would be attached to the special provision, i.e. pork spending, he or she requested. 

John Locke Foundation’s president Donald Bryson has championed such transparency, and he dubbed Insko’s bill “the Insko Rule.” 

North Carolina should enact the Inkso Rule for three reasons:

1. Taxpayers deserve transparency from the state government.

Transparency makes for better policy. Taxpayers should be able to see where their money is going and who requested it be spent to that end. If a new government-funded project is coming to your locality, you should be able to see that project’s details when it is requested. 

Even in duplicitous Washington, D.C., members are required to attach their names to their requested pork projects. For the spending omnibus legislation that passed last year, I was able to log all of those extraneous projects attached to each North Carolina member of Congress.  

The present lack of transparency in the state budget further underscores the importance of reform. During the adjustments this summer, the General Assembly departed from the traditional process of appropriations committees. The June budget was settled in a conference report. As Bryson wrote, it was a step away from transparency: “By allowing a select few legislators to craft budget changes through a conference report, legislative leaders have made some legislative districts more valuable than others.”

2. Legislators must be held accountable for their local project requests. 

Members are currently not held accountable for their local project requests. This ruling-class, elitist mindset implies that taxpayers should yield to legislators as omniscient spenders.

Local spending is growing unfettered. Many of the local projects may be well-intentioned. But the state budget comprises limited taxpayer resources. They should be used for legitimate, core functions of government. 

Legislators should not shy away from taking credit (or blame) for these spending projects if they think they are necessary. The Insko Rule would provide crucial accountability for such requests. Accountability is a tenet of sound policy and is a critical deterrent to fiscal abuse. 

In the latest budget adjustments made in June, the General Assembly took additional action to accelerate pork spending and avoid accountability. Lawmakers established a Local Project Reserve to “make funds available for local project expenditures.” The budget allocated an additional $80.1 million in taxpayer dollars to this fund for this fiscal year alone. And because the funds were set aside in a special reserve, the expenditures were not included in the General Fund appropriations, giving the appearance of a smaller state budget.  

3. Transparency could curb spending.

Ultimately, with the application of the Insko Rule, some wasteful pork projects might be stopped altogether. Perhaps legislators might be more discrete with their requests if they are required to defend such spending publicly. 

Moreover, curbing pork spending would likely garner bipartisan support. North Carolinians on the left, notably Rep. Insko, and the right, including the John Locke Foundation, are similarly outraged by pork spending in state budgets.

North Carolina is a renowned leader on tax reform. But the state can, and should, lead on all fiscal issues. The Inkso Rule for budget transparency is a commonsense next step for North Carolina.

Paige Terryberry is the senior analyst for fiscal policy at the John Locke Foundation, a free-market think tank based in Raleigh.