Posted on 07/27/2010 4:53:13 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
Unemployment in America is a national crisis. It is also a local crisis. As individuals and families struggle to find work, make ends meet, and keep their homes amid an anemic economic recovery, they increasingly turn to local services for support.
* * *
Unfortunately, just as families are increasingly turning to local governments for support, local governments are facing their own fiscal crisis. The effects of the Great Recession on local budgets will be felt most deeply from 2010 to 2012. In response, local governments are cutting services and personnel.
This report from the National League of Cities (NLC), National Association of Counties (NACo), and the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) reveals that local government job losses in the current and next fiscal years will approach 500,000, with public safety, public works, public health, social services and parks and recreation hardest hit by the cutbacks.
Local governments are being forced to make significant cuts that will ... curtail essential services, and increase the number of people in need.
This report presents the latest survey results from local officials on job losses and service cuts. The survey results point to the urgent need for federal action to minimize layoffs and service cuts in order to help families and stabilize local economies.
THE ECONOMIC ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
* * *
Local budget crises lead to job losses in both the public and private sectors. The business of local governments is often conducted through the private sector.... The Economic Policy Institute estimates that for every 100 public sector layoffs there are 30 private sector layoffs.
Local and state governments comprise one of the nation’s largest employment industries, larger than the manufacturing and construction industries combined. Local governments account for seven in every 10 of these employees.
(Excerpt) Read more at nlc.org ...
I’m not saying that this is the best possible news ever. I’m just saying that the data would support that conclusion were these federal employees as well as local government employees.
Anything that reduces the size of government whether it be the economy, an earthquake, or a meteor hitting Washington DC, is a good thing.
It will be nice to see all the Obamanazis in local governments who thought they were immune to economic downturn get theirs. Unfortunately the first to get cut are likely the services I use such as the police and fire departments. The few things a government should be doing will be cut to the bone before they get rid of the second assistant to the diversity outreach coordinator.
In addition, govt. employment is paid for by those who make something, that is create the wealth that is taxed. Govt. employment doesn't create anything other than a job that is overpaid for the production level exhibited.
How, in God's name, can govt. employment be a viable, contributing factor to the economy, when to pay for it the money has to be confiscated from those who don't work for the govt.
By producing public goods --- such as safety, sanitation, etc. The policeman provides a public service, just as a waiter provides a private service.
[An economy involves production of there kinds of goods: public, private and club goods. The last category is intermediate between public and private.]
Ha! I may regret saying this, but to me it is a silver lining. I work for a civil engineering firm, and have to deal with more local government nitwits that haven’t a clue about the limits of their position. A lot of them are nothing but make-work paper shufflers, trying to justify their position.
Laffer Curve at work trickling up from the local gov’ts to the States to eventually the Feds.
Local governments running free healthcare clinics, domestic violence services, subsidizing Alcoholics Anonymous, etc. They have gone beyond the scope of what government is supposed to do. Just fix the roads and keep law and order. That’s basically all local government should be doing.
Who cares,, I’m self employed....people will sell their first born to keep the A/C’s running in the south.....I went to the four year college of hard work.... (vo-tech) PS,, averaging between $40/60k/yr.
The local governments have got the schtick down. They will cut things that are visible and close to the voters. For instance, they will cut the number of people who cut the grass-so much of the grass is left uncut. This is done with the intention of "looking" like they are reducing costs while having the whiners publicly complain about the tall grass at the same time.
The service that the police provide is 'after the fact'. As I said previously, if my house is broken into at 2 am, is there going to be a policeman there to provide the service of protection. Absolutely not! I will be the one providing the protection.
The police may show up later to document the mess, but that is about all.
Finally, addressing the garbage service, we pay for that out of our incomes in the form of assessment (taxes) to avoid disease. But, garbage collection does not create wealth in the dynamic sense that wealth needs to be created.
Police does not provide the service after the fact: you forgot about patrolling and deterrence it provides, for instance. What you describe is a particular case where service is bad. Well, there are bad waiters, too.
Your intuition is correct in at least one respect, however. Whereas private services are provided best by the markets, those same markets cannot provide public goods/services. A rational person would not want to pay anything for street lighting, for instance: once someone else pays for it, you'll be able to walk the same lighted street. (This is referred to as the "free-rider problem"). For that reason, government is needed to ensure provision of public goods: defense, public safety, sanitation, public schools, etc. You are correct, therefore, when you say that we don't pay for those voluntarily.
But the initial post was whether you get something or not. As I mentioned earlier, you do: police protection, lighted streets, sanitation, etc.
Every cloud has a silver lining.
If patrolling were a deterrence then there would be a great reduction of crime. Facts are that crime is thriving quite nicely.
As I said previously, police don't prevent crime. Why? Because the criminals don't commit crimes when the police are around.
Therefore, the police arrive after the crime has been committed, i.e. 'after-the-fact'.
Here is my point. The police didn't prevent this guy from being stabbed nor prevent him from being run over. But, they did find him after-the-fact.
Policing does reduce crime. To see that you should compare crime rates where there is more policing with crime rates where there is less policing.
Seeing 10 robberies ("crime is thriving"), you conclude that "police don't prevent crime" because that number is not zero. The logic here is incorrect: you should compare 10 not to 0 but to the number of robberies that would have occurred if police were not there --- 12, 14 or some other number, which we know to be greater than 10.
"As I said previously, police don't prevent crime. Why? Because the criminals don't commit crimes when the police are around."
Please talk to someone or read something on the mechanics of law enforcement. I cannot contribute further to this discussion.
The same bottom line applies: They arrive at the scene of a crime after the fact. They investigate after the fact. They look at the crime scene after the crime has been committed. They pick up the bodies after the murders.
If you think the police are protecting you, you are living in a dream world.
Good luck!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.