FRN Columnists' Corner - "Having Our Cake" By Lady Liberty

Free Republic Network ^ | 11-1-03 | Lady Liberty

[Bob J]

Columnists' Corner

"Having Our Cake"

By Lady Liberty

I don't know how it is where you live, but as this election cycle approaches in my town, much of the talk is of taxes. The city and the local school system both want more money. Various local taxpayer funded programs say they're getting the state and federal dollars to which they're entitled, but they'd like to be entitled to more. Meanwhile, the average citizen is facing a ballot offering choices between politicians who favor higher taxes and those who think job cuts are both necessary and inevitable, as well as issues that threaten program reductions if tax levies aren't approved.

The emphasis on taxes this year isn't unusual, at least not here. The city has wanted more tax dollars for years. Sometimes its efforts are successful. Other times, the pleas for money have fallen on deaf ears. There are two reasons a ballot involving taxation is typically defeated: the citizens think their taxes are already too high, or they think the entity getting the tax dollars isn't spending them wisely. Then, of course, there's the "necessity" factor. For example, over the course of the last decade, city residents have voted to fund a new fire station and to renovate the public library. They've turned down, however, the notion of pay raises for city commissioners.

In my state, the primary method of school funding is property taxes. Levies are made against the value of a property, and property owners pay up to support local schools. These levies expire regularly and must be renewed by vote. Renewal levies, which involve no real change in property taxes (unless property is revalued), are usually passed. But this year, the local school system is asking for a new levy. Officials say that property tax valuations aren't keeping up with inflation and that, if the money isn't ponied up, certain positions and programs will have to be cut.

This request for more money is being made by a school system with an academic record that's less than impressive. In fact, students in the district scored so poorly on state tests that authorities have mandated certain actions be taken to improve test scores, and the school is being watched closely. While acknowledging some shortcomings, officials with the school system are quick to point out that the district also has a relatively good athletic program and an award-winning music program.

Members of the public do offer strong support for football games, and they're justifiably proud of some truly stellar musical performances. But the schools are first supposed to educate, and the ones here all too frequently aren't, at least not at any kind of adequate level. So what's the future of the levy? It's hard to say because locals have usually supported the schools without asking too many questions. But this could prove to be subject to reason-for-defeat number two: the entity getting the tax dollars isn't spending them wisely.

Recently, city officials came up with a creative solution to making more money. They instituted a very specific tax that would generate a significant income. The problem is that the tax appears to have been focused on a single business in town, and that business is none to happy about being hit for taxes that don't seem to apply to anybody else. Just to prove the business wasn't targeted, city officials pointed out that a few other entities would also be subject to the tax based on certain criteria. In the end, it turns out the short-of-funding schools are subject to the tax, and so the schools have signed on with the managers of the business to oppose the city's actions. Between a lawsuit it could very well lose and legal fees it is most certainly paying, the city could easily spend far more money than the tax would have generated. Now to emphasize the money crunch, city leaders are threatening job cuts if more money isn't forthcoming. Will the public respond with more money? Maybe. Or maybe not. After all, reason-for-defeat number one is a good one: citizens think their taxes are already too high.

Regardless of the rationale for or against higher taxes, the bottom line is usually (and if it isn't, it should be!) the reason-for-defeat that trumps all others: necessity.

Are schools necessary? Yes. But educating children at a level that will make them functional adults in the real world, or that will prepare them for college, is the extent of that necessity. Everything else is icing on the cake. And if you can't afford the fancy dessert, you're just going to have to settle for the cake as it is. Yes, the choirs are amazing, and the sporting events are a lot of fun. But when the cake itself needs some work, any frosting money is better spent improving the cake recipe, not on creating candy flower decorations. That's something the many who favor school voucher programs already know (although I've not heard that possibility mentioned locally). If more schools don't want to face that particular crisis, they're going to have to learn - and quickly! - how to make a better tasting cake. Frankly, taking a page out of the book from private and/or religious schools might not be a bad idea because they're managing to educate students better than the public schools, and in many cases, they're doing it for the same or an even lesser amount of money per student.

What about the city? Well, the city has won awards for its landscaping. And truth be told, I'm impressed virtually every time I see some of the parks. But are all those flowers, planted in intricate designs, necessary? Are the exotic plants (ones that are moved indoors as the weather requires and then potted outdoors again when summer returns) really necessary? Is a very expensive study into the feasibility and design of a proposed project (one that we're now told is outdated and will need to be repeated) really necessary? Are extended summer programs for kids, wonderful as they are, a true necessity?

The point I'm actually trying to make is a relatively simple one, and it applies to public entities of all sizes, from small municipalities all the way to the administrative behemoth in Washington, DC. Consider, for a moment, what you and I do when we run short of money. Instead of steak, we buy hamburger. Instead of going to the movies, we watch TV. Instead of taking an exotic vacation, we go camping in a State Park. We don't eliminate entirely the services we offer to our household. We just modify them, offer alternatives, or hold off on them until they're once again affordable.

Irresponsible people don't think that way. They'll take out a second mortgage, or they'll run their credit cards up to the limit. Eventually, when the irresponsible person gets in over his or her head, the bank stops approving credit increases and starts demanding payments. Much like that irresponsible man or woman with a credit card, the vast majority of government entities just keep spending money. So what should be done about that?

The best way to avoid getting into such a hole is not to spend money we don't have. Most of us have already learned that lesson, some of us more painfully than others. So yes, I'm well aware it could hurt a little. But as one member of the community effectively making up the bank, I'm about done approving credit increases. Now all we have to do is keep an eye on officials to make sure that the cake part of the budgets remain intact while only the icing is scraped away. That's something that's easier said than done when so many in government have grown to have quite a sweet tooth.

© 2003 Lady Liberty

[Travis McGee]

You might as well ask an alchoholic to put down his bottle of wine.