Posted on 04/02/2002 5:14:58 AM PST by logic101.net
GOVERNMENT AND MONEY; THE WORST ADDICTION
3/29/02
The City of Milwaukee recently announced a 3 month hiring freeze. They claim that this will save $4.3 million. The city spokesman went on to say that there "...will be exceptions based on need." Ok, so this means that city hiring practices have been based on... on... on.... I'm sorry, but the concept eludes me here. If we don't need an employee, why have we hired him or her? What do these people do all week if we really didn't need them? Couldn't the city save $17.2 million every year if we instituted a permanent policy of only hiring the employees we need?
In the private sector Supply and Demand dictate hiring practices. If an employer needs more supply to meet demand, and if it is cost effective to do so, the company either runs overtime or hires more people. In government Supply and Demand have a very different definition. In any government body, the Supply of money must be spent, so that the organization can then Demand more money from the taxpayers. How the money is spent is much less of an issue than the need, almost on a compulsive level, to get even more Supply.
The City of Milwaukee is trying to save money now in anticipation of loss of shared revenue from the State of WI; part of our Governor's plan to keep the State in the black. Under revenue sharing, the State taxes us, and then gives the money to the cities. This policy was instituted in a misguided effort to prevent property taxes from going higher. It didn't work. The local governments saw a larger Supply of their drug of choice (money), and felt compelled to spend it. It did little if anything to quell their Demand for more money from taxpayers. All the Wisconsin cities are now crying about the possible loss of this Supply of cash and are threatening to eliminate services. One city, Beloit is even threatening to just dissolve itself (this would not be a huge loss to the State; trust me). Others are threatening to jack up property taxes. They hate to raise property taxes, because the voters in the city hold them accountable to that. But; if they can get the State to jack up income taxes and then send the money back to them; well that's great for the re-election campaign! It's a win-win situation for local government and those who feed off of it.
The Governor's plan to eliminate this scam will force elected officials on the local level to either face the wrath of the voters by raising property taxes even higher, or (gasp!) to actually watch where they spend our money. This forces the elected officials to make hard decisions; they don't like that.
However, as this example shows; the only way to force a governmental body to actually watch where they are spending our money is to reduce the Supply of it. If their Supply is decreased enough, they may even start to cut wasteful programs. This is a situation that is every politician's nightmare; having to eliminate programs. Most of the voters will support saving that $2 million or more every year, but the 30 people who work in administering it, and the 7 or 8 citizens who actually benefit from it will really be upset and cause a fuss! We all know which group the press will interview; and it won't be the average taxpayer!
Let's force government to be accountable to it's citizens; let's cut their Supply of cash on all levels.
. MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/
What do you think if us forcing our Representatives to pass a law requiring THE GOVERNMENT to file a Finantial Impact Statement, or FIS, each time they pass a law that could increase our tax burden?
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.