Caldwell: We Left Carlisle a ‘Huge’ Budget Surplus
Honolulu mayoral candidate Kirk Caldwell believes someone owes him a thank you. And that someone is his closest rival — Mayor Peter Carlisle.
At a , Caldwell challenged Carlisle on his record of fiscal conservatism, a principle the current mayor repeatedly says is at the foundation of his administration.
But Caldwell said Carlisle, who’s been in office for about 18 months, is more beneficiary than benefactor, and that it’s the previous administration that should get the credit for giving the city a plush fiscal cushion.
In particular, Caldwell said the prior administration — headed first by Mufi Hannemann and then Caldwell for a few months after Hannemann resigned to run for governor — left Carlisle with a “huge operating surplus that was used by Peter to balance his budget in the first year.”
“So let’s give credit where credit is due, local style,” Caldwell said. “Don’t pat yourself on the back. Recognize the hard work of others.”
Bold statements and specific criticism? Sounds like perfect fodder for a Civil Beat Fact Check, right? We thought so, too.
First, we called Caldwell to see what he meant by “operating surplus.” He told us to look at the carryover balance in the operating budget from year to year. The carryover is essentially the money that wasn’t spent the year before.
“If you do things correctly, there should be a large carryover balance,” Caldwell said in a phone interview. “If not, it will be smaller.”
Seems simple enough. See how much money was left over when Caldwell last had a hand in the budget and compare that to Carlisle’s follow-up spending plan. Done.
What we found is Caldwell is right. The Hannemann/Caldwell administration did leave behind a large surplus — $502 million — that Carlisle then relied on when putting together his .
It should be noted, however, that Caldwell’s claim referred to a specific point in time, March 2011, when Carlisle . It’s not the final spending plan that’s passed by the City Council and signed by the mayor. It’s also not a look at how Carlisle spent money throughout FY 2012.
To us it’s important to note that last part and put it into context.
If you look at the FY 2013 budget proposal Carlisle released in March he estimates the carryover will be more than $529 million. That means he would have added to the Hannemann/Caldwell surplus, not dipped into it.
While we consider that important information, we decided not to let that influence our ruling.
The reason is this: When Caldwell made his statement he was referring to the fiscal responsibility of the Hannemann/Caldwell administration. He was not calling Carlisle a spend thrift. Had he done so, we might reconsider.
BOTTOM LINE: Budget documents show the Hannemann/Caldwell administration left behind a large surplus that Carlisle then used to prepare his first spending plan. Even though Carlisle doesn’t expect to actually spend that money — in fact he plans to add to the pot — Caldwell’s assertion referred to the mayor’s proposed budget, not how he actually implemented it. For this reason we rule Caldwell’s claim to be TRUE.
