Local Government Aid Blurs Responsibility

Fightin Words ^ | February 16, 2010 | Walter Scott Hudson

[Walter Scott Hudson]

We each know who puts food on our table, be it an employer, customer, or some other patron. To keep the milk and honey flowing, we humbly serve. We understand that offending the boss risks vagrancy. This is a lesson taught from childhood. It is not uncommon for fathers to answer the objections of their children with something along the lines of, “Because I said so. Because this is my house. You live under my roof. I put food on the table,” etc. The underlying sentiment is irrefutable; if you rely upon another for sustenance, you are subject to their will.

The Minnesota legislative session is in full swing, and the state’s budget has taken center stage. Politics In Minnesota reports a wave of reaction from local government officials to Governor Tim Pawlenty’s proposed cuts to local government aid, a kind of municipal welfare. Here is an excerpt:

Heidi Omerza, a member of the Ely City Council, pointed out that her city depends on state assistance for 44 percent of its budget. She said that the city’s workforce has been reduced from 44 to 39 employees since 2005 and that a new recreation facility sits dormant because there’s no money for staffing.

Mankato city manager Pat Hentges told legislators that the percentage of the city’s budget comprised of state assistance has dropped from 55 to 27 percent in recent years. He also pointed out that Mankato’s current budget is smaller than three years earlier and that its workforce has been reduced by 10 percent.

“We are basically down to core services spending,” Hentges said.

Minneapolis would lose an additional $50 million under Pawlenty’s plan. City council member Elizabeth Glidden pointed out that that’s roughly equivalent to the annual budget for the Minneapolis Fire Department.

When cities have to rely on the state for 44-55% of their budgets, something is wrong. How can the citizens of Ely, for instance, claim to be served by a city council which relies upon the State of Minnesota to fund nearly half its operations? What is the point of electing a city council if they have to jump through state-hoops to snag state-dollars? Does that not effectively cede control of the city to the state?

Particularly amusing is Glidden’s none-too-subtle implication that the Minneapolis Fire Department might be endangered by Pawlenty’s proposed cuts, as if it is somehow the state’s responsibility to keep the City of Minneapolis from burning down. Last October, Fightin Words interviewed Minneapolis firefighter John Ackerman. Speaking on his own behalf and not for the department or the city, Ackerman shared his assessment of the political blame game enabled by local government aid. Year after year, the Minneapolis Fire Department is put on notice to expect layoffs. Year after year, a lack of state funds is cited as the cause. Last time around, Ackerman’s job was saved by a one-time allocation by the city while it waited for a federal grant. “In two years’ time, unless anything changes, we’re still in the same boat. We don’t have dedicated funds,” Ackerman said, adding Minneapolis already lags behind national standards for firefighters per capita.

What local government aid does to cities is the same thing federal aid does to states. It is the same thing all government aid does to individuals and businesses. It blurs the lines of responsibility, and shifts control from the entity receiving funding to the entity which provides. It’s a brilliant arrangement for politicians. Local officials get to shift responsibility for local services to the state, while taking credit for consequently low property taxes. State politicians get control over local governments.

The people lose. Not only is there a loss of local control; there is a loss of accountability. The people still pay for their municipal services through the redistributive mechanism of local government aid. But the cost is shifted from local property taxes to state taxes, diluting the taxpayer’s sense of their burden. The psychological affect on the taxpayer is analogous to the automatic withdrawal of payroll taxes, which disassociates the wage earner from the sense of loss writing a check would evoke.

Local government aid is an incestuous relationship between state and local government. The abnormal offspring is perpetually threatened essential services and unaccountable local officials. It is time for voters to take notice of the games their politicians are playing and demand local government be autonomous, secure, and accountable.

[Bean Counter]

Right...

In May of 2008, the voters in our local School District considered Proposition 1, a $250 Million construction bond that would have replaced three middle and elementary schools, and built a new “science high school”. It was defeated soundly, mainly because of the massive tax increase it would have entailed for the construction, and the additional operating levy that would have been needed later to staff and operate that new high school.

Last week, the District announced that they had received $17.4 Million in Federal “stimulus” funds to start construction, along with a promise of another $23 Million from the State of Washington, to outfit the school. They still have to figure out how to get an operating levy passed.

So how does a new school that the voters soundly rejected get submitted for stimulus money?? How is that either legal or Constitutional??

[Walter Scott Hudson]

That Washington state story is indicative of the sovereignty lost through the “marble cake” of modern pseudo-federalism. Naturally, once ground is broke on the school, its future fiscal viability will become a “crisis” that needs to be dealt with. Opponents of funding, like yourself, will likely be cast as villains of education, irresponsible for letting a half-built or just-built facility go to waste, etc. You’re right. It’s an end-run around the voters.

[Bean Counter]

And what makes it even worse is that 2 local newspapers reported on the stimulus award, and said nothing about this being already vetted by the voters and rejected. It’s sickening and it’s going to get worse. Obama is about to unleash some unknown number of Executive Orders on a number of subjects, and he is setting the example of how to ignore and out-maneuver the voters.

The Second Amendment exists to give us the means to protect ourselves from the Government. It is a bludgeon that one does not pick up alone, or lightly. That said, I wonder how much more of this people will take...