There is something about large numbers that makes people lose all contact with reality, much like when someone at a buffet says, “I’ll just try a little of everything,” and then returns to the table with a plate that appears to violate several laws of physics.
This brings us to the Tennessee state budget, which has nearly doubled since Phil Bredesen left office in 2011, growing from about $30 billion to nearly $60 billion under Bill Lee. This causes two immediate reactions:
“THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.”
“THIS IS AMAZING.”
Both of these reactions are usually expressed by people who have not read past the total number.
Because here is the thing: not all dollars are created equal. Some dollars are like actual money. Others are what economists call “money that sounds impressive at dinner parties but is mostly just passing through.”
The number everybody likes to cite—the “total budget”—includes everything: state taxes, federal funds, tuition, fees, and various mysterious categories that sound like they were invented by a committee called the Department of Additional Things.
When Washington spends more money— and Washington spends money the way toddlers eat frosting — that money flows through the state and makes the budget look like it’s been hitting the gym. However, trust me the spenders have hit more buffets than gyms at Cordell Hull
This does not necessarily mean Tennessee itself suddenly decided to double its spending any more than your household budget has doubled because your cousin Larry Venmo’d you $200 and then immediately asked for it back.
This distinction matters, although it is not nearly as exciting as yelling “THE BUDGET DOUBLED,” which is why it is often ignored.
If you actually want to know what state leaders control, you look at something called the general fund, which is primarily state tax dollars. This has grown, yes—but not in a “we just discovered oil while out hunting with Uncle Jethro” kind of way. More like a steady, “the economy is growing and also everything costs more now” kind of way.
Unfortunately, this kind of nuance does not perform well on social media, where the preferred unit of analysis is the All-Caps Sentence.
We should also note that this 15-year period includes not just Bill Lee, but also Bill Haslam, along with events such as economic recovery, population growth, and the federal government briefly deciding that money was more of a suggestion than a limit. Assigning all of this to one person is what statisticians refer to as “creative storytelling.”
The growth itself did not happen overnight. It rose gradually under Haslam, then picked up speed more recently as revenues increased and the state spent more.
You can argue about whether those are good choices, bad choices, or choices made after staring at spreadsheets for so long that all numbers begin to look friendly. But simply pointing at the total and shouting is not analysis. It is cardio.
Also, inflation has been quietly doing what inflation does, which is making every dollar worth less while requiring more of them to buy the same stuff. Add in population growth— because people keep moving to Tennessee, possibly for the barbecue —and you get a bigger budget that is not quite as dramatic as it sounds when announced with the media promotion of a new album from Morgan Wallen.
None of this means everything is fine. Governments, like garages, have a natural tendency to fill up with stuff you do not remember acquiring. Programs expand. Spending becomes habitual. And “fiscal responsibility” is sometimes a phrase politicians use the same way people use the word “salad,” meaning they feel better having said it.
Then there are Friends of Bill and Friends of Bill II to groups that worked their way into the inner circles and got state funding, groups like Teach for America, among others. Contracts should be reviewed regularly and should be competitively bid regularly to guarantee the state gets the best investment of taxpayer dollars. Tennessee could use a detailed DOGE review, not just focused on fraud waste and abuse, but also on whether government programs throughout the state are actually producing verifiable and quantifiable positive results. Many are not.
But if you actually care about what is happening, you have to separate what is spent from what is controlled, what is nominal from what is real, and what is long-term from what is temporary. Otherwise, public debate becomes a competition to see who can shout the biggest number without blinking.
Economists such as Thomas Sowell have long pointed out that there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Which is a deeply disappointing concept to people who prefer solutions.
Tennessee’s budget is a collection of those trade-offs: spending versus restraint, growth versus caution, short-term funding versus long-term obligations. Whether those choices are wise is a serious question.
But before we answer it, we should at least make sure we are not confusing a very large number with a very simple story.
Because when it comes to government budgets, as with buffet plates, the size tells you something. Just not everything.
Steve Gill is editor and publisher of TriStar Daily.
Author
