More troopers, for now.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Adding 127 sworn officers to the Oregon State Police is no small thing. That would be a 41 percent increase from the 2003-05 biennium, when the force bottomed out at less than half its size 20 years earlier. In this session, the Legislature has money to spend on public safety and other programs. But lawmakers still haven't answered the question of how Oregon can endure its next economic downturn without shrinking the state police once again.

Last week the Public Safety Subcommittee of the budget-writing Joint Ways & Means Committee approved a general fund appropriation of $217 million for the state police - enough to add 100 troopers, seven drug-case detectives and 15 forensic specialists. The increase from the current budget of $179 million will make Oregon highways safer, and is especially welcome at a time when many counties, including Lane, are contemplating deep cuts in law enforcement.

An increased general fund appropriation would mean the state police had prevailed in competition with other state services that rely on the same pile of dollars - everything from education to corrections. There can be many winners in this competition when the pile is getting bigger. When the pile stops growing or actually begins to shrink, as occurs during a recession, the competition produces more losers. The Oregon State Police has long been among them.

Financial support for the state police has declined since 1980, when voters amended the state Constitution to bar the use of gas tax funds for police, parks and all purposes except roads. It's plain that the Oregon State Police can achieve lasting financial stability only with the help of a dedicated source of funding. Gov. Ted. Kulongoski recognized this, and proposed funding an additional 139 troopers by means of a surcharge on auto insurance premiums. That idea has gone nowhere.

The Legislature's most promising alternative to Kulongoski's proposal has been to dedicate part of an increase in the state beer tax, currently the nation's lowest, to the state police. Given state troopers' role in controlling drunken driving, linking their budget to an alcohol tax makes sense. But no tax increases, no matter how sensible or necessary, appear likely to attain the supermajority support required in the House of Representatives.

That leaves the general fund as the only source of money for an enlarged state police force. Lawmakers are correct in arguing that it's better to increase general fund support now than wait for a dedicated funding source that may never come. But they should also acknowledge that until troopers' positions are protected from the volatile nature of state revenue flows, the job of funding the state police will be unfinished.