Gov. Bill Graves had people like Tim Shallenburger in mind when he wrote in his State of the State address, “The critic without an alternative solution brings little value to this debate.”

State Treasurer Tim Shallenburger isn’t the only state official who’s putting rhetoric above reason right now, but his appearance before the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday is a fine example of the kind of empty budget input that is more harmful than helpful.

Shallenburger, a former House speaker, was the only gubernatorial candidate who responded to an invitation to appear before the committee to share ideas on how to balance the state budget. His participation may be laudable, but before he left the committee hearing, it was clear that his appearance there was more of a campaign stomp speech than a serious attempt to contribute to the budget debate.

It’s easy to stand before lawmakers, as Shallenburger did, and tell them to solve the budget crisis by cutting the waste in government. It’s quite another matter to identify that waste and how to cut it. Shallenburger had no specific suggestions on that part of the equation.

Journalists who cover state government know that Shallenburger is always good for a quote or soundbite. His sarcastic, cut-to-the-chase style often produces statements that are surprising, if not outrageous. His comments on Tuesday were no exception.

Why not cut the budget by eliminating the Department of Housing and Commerce, Shallenburger asked. We wouldn’t want to reduce funding for public schools, he said, but those Kansas Board of Regents universities will survive whatever cuts come their way. If they want to avoid tuition cuts, they should dig into their “foundations.”

This is just senseless rambling. OK, let’s think outside the box, and look at eliminating the Department of Commerce and Housing. If we’re to take Shallenburger’s suggestion seriously, we would need to know what functions of that department could be eliminated and how those that need to be preserved could be handled by other departments. But none of that information was presented.

On the matter of public schools, has Shallenburger been reading the newspapers? Does he realize how much money must be raised to avoid cuts and simply maintain current school budgets? Does Shallenburger have a plan to raise that money?

Presumably, when he speaks of university “foundations,” Shallenburger is talking about the independent endowment associations that have assumed an increasing role in keeping state universities afloat while state support for those schools has dwindled. There are many restrictions on the uses of those donated funds; university leaders can’t simply dip into them at will. The current stagnant economy has put a damper on income from endowed funds. And what happens 10 or 20 years from now if officials deplete those funds to meet the current budget crisis?

The kind of empty rhetoric Shallenburger displayed in the House committee on Tuesday is less than helpful. Perhaps it won him some support from stubborn conservatives who are blindly sticking to a “no-tax” stand, but it does nothing to move the state closer to resolving its budget dilemma.