It was a heady time for David Stockman. Ronald Reagan had just been elected president with a mandate to carry out his call for limited government, and Stockman was named budget director. Finally, he thought, government spending could be trimmed. What happened next was captured in his aptly titled book, “The Triumph of Politics.”

Cabinet member after Cabinet member informed him that other departments could sure use some slashing, but that they needed every dollar – and then some. Frustrated by this lack of support from his own teammates, Stockman went to the media. Shortly thereafter, he was the former budget director.

In a democracy, the budget process has always been swayed by politics and it always will be. Efforts to run government like a business will ultimately fail because businesses aren’t run on democratic principles. That doesn’t mean government leaders cannot invoke sound business practices as they decide the priorities of government. Washington Gov. Gary Locke instituted such a process as state leaders struggled to close a huge budget deficit. That worthy process continues, and state budget officials are coming to Spokane this week to gather public input and explain the process as it plots the next two-year budget.

For every area of new spending identified, budget crunchers must find either a corresponding cut or a new revenue source (usually taxes). The problem with the process is that budget drafters assign no points for programs that save money – and lives – in the long-term, which brings us to the ambitious proposal for an overhaul of the state’s child welfare services. The plan includes hiring more workers to speed reaction times and allow for earlier interventions in the hopes of heading off the horrible child abuse cases that have been making headlines. The price tag is $30 million to $50 million, or a 10 percent increase in the Children’s Administration budget.

The easy course for politicians (and pundits) to do is to support every well-meaning program that comes along. The hard part is saying no to other areas of spending to free up the money. That’s why the priorities of government process are important. It asks what government should be doing, rather than assuming that it will stay the course.

Such a process, undertaken honestly, would place a high priority on protecting defenseless children. A recent federal review flunked the state’s child welfare system, saying it was overwhelmed and in need of coordination and consistency. The money spent now will head off money spent in other areas of government later. For instance, one-fifth of children who leave the foster care system each year when they become too old end up incarcerated at some point. Within two years, one-third of them have children. Better foster care would save the state money in social services, health care and criminal justice.

To be sure, the price tag for the reform itself should be scrutinized, and other functions of Children’s Administration need to be examined for cost savings. But if the state is serious about getting its priorities straight, it will find a way to protect more children.