Not everyone notices the recession
By
Rory Ryan-hcpress@cinci.rr.com
Laissez les bons temps rouler.
As they say in New Orleans, “Let the good times roll.”
In the olden days, Washington politicians joked about “a million here and a million there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
These days, the old saw might apply to county governments. But for state budgets, one must replace “million” with “billion,” and for federal use, “billion” must be replaced with “trillion.”
A former Hillsboro city official spoke with me this week about the irony between the actions two local government bodies. On the one hand, he said, the county is getting a good deal of praise for making the tough, but necessary, budget cuts. On the other hand, he said, the city acts as if it’s afraid of being criticized for making any cuts and, thus, continues to ignore a pending deficit.
Why?
To borrow one of Hall of Famer Marty Brennaman’s favorite phrases, “I doesn’t know.”
It’s long been argued that those who aspire to operate a government budget – be it local, state, or federal – ought to have some successful business experience in the private sector. As we can see in Washington, a professional background as a “community organizer” just doesn’t cut it.
We’ve long asked (facetiously): If spending billions (or trillions) in the name of national prosperity is a good thing, wouldn’t spending 10 times as much be a better thing?
The honest answer, however painful in the short term, is no. For those public officials unenlightened on the topic, government does not create wealth. It only taxes the effort of those who do. And if you tax (and spend) to excess, deficits shall follow you all of your days.
Today’s voting Americans ought to be writing cards of apologies to their grandchildren for the fiscal albatross we are bequeathing them.
There are many reasons why few in public offices are willing to stomach reductions in spending. The first and most obvious is this: Spending other people’s money is easy. Another reason is similarly obvious: Campaigning and/or administrating on a platform of spending cuts is usually a political taboo. It may work once for the challenger during a “turn-the-rascals-out” campaign. But once the challenger takes office, he/she learns to play by a different set of rules.
Take the “historic” 104th Congress. This was, of course, the Newt Gingrich-led clan that won the 1994 midterm elections touting its Contract with America. The 104th was one of the reasons Bill Clinton gets some credit for coming close to a balanced budget. The Democrat president and the GOP Congress managed to find common ground on welfare reform, defense spending and other issues.
Trouble was, though, once the Republicans regained a congressional majority for the first time in four decades, many of them forgot all about their campaign promises. (And we’ve witnessed similar memory loss on the local level.)
At one recent local public meeting, there were praises of annual spending increases of 22 percent for nearly a 20-year period. Sadly, there was not a single “thank you, taxpayers.”
There’s an interesting story (several, actually) in the May 17 National Review.
Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Josh Barro writes about what happens when a state governor attempts something so daring as simply holding the line on spending.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had a death wish placed on him after suggesting a one-year freeze on compensation for public teachers.
According to data collected by Barro, the New Jersey teachers average more than $60,000 a year plus tremendous benefits, including 100 percent of their health insurance paid by the school districts (i.e. taxpayers).
Barro writes, “Most public employees could be excused for not noticing the recession, given the strong employment and wage growth their sector has experienced over the past several years and continues to enjoy.”
A few friends who have long enjoyed their income and benefits as public employees maintain they are not overly compensated. They say the private sector is simply under-compensated. They’ll get no argument from those of us in the private sector. However, when those who work without such receipts of the dole must work five months or more each year just to satisfy their respective tax obligations, there’s precious little time left on the calendar to join the more affluent sector.
(And, please, let’s stop pointing fingers at the small handful of CEOs who rake in millions a year simply by counting beans. In the grand scheme of things, they are few and far between. Moreover, data from both the state of Ohio and the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics show a growing wage disparity.)
Whether it’s teachers in New Jersey or certain public employees in Ohio, one thing’s for certain: Taxpayers are not in the mood to vote more of their wages over to any government entity. The taxpayers’ message is clear: Cut spending.
As Barro concludes: “With voter antipathy to tax increases high and growing, politicians in both parties are likely to find that taking on the unions is the path of least political resistance. In the next two years, watch for fiscal restraint to become New Jersey’s surprising new export.”
I wonder if Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland or anyone in the Ohio General Assembly has looked at the Barro report. Probably not. We still like to rely on federal stimulus money here in the Buckeye State. But that well’s gone dry. And so has the money pit of additional tax levies. Voters are quite clear on that one.
The state auditor has recently instructed the Scioto County commissioners to cut $1.4 million in spending. The county is in a fiscal emergency with a budget deficit of more than $3 million. Locally, the city of Hillsboro auditor projects a pending budget deficit of more than half a million dollars. If no action is taken, that number will surely inch closer to the $1 million mark – and soon.
It ain’t politics; it’s arithmetics.
Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.[[In-content Ad]]
As they say in New Orleans, “Let the good times roll.”
In the olden days, Washington politicians joked about “a million here and a million there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
These days, the old saw might apply to county governments. But for state budgets, one must replace “million” with “billion,” and for federal use, “billion” must be replaced with “trillion.”
A former Hillsboro city official spoke with me this week about the irony between the actions two local government bodies. On the one hand, he said, the county is getting a good deal of praise for making the tough, but necessary, budget cuts. On the other hand, he said, the city acts as if it’s afraid of being criticized for making any cuts and, thus, continues to ignore a pending deficit.
Why?
To borrow one of Hall of Famer Marty Brennaman’s favorite phrases, “I doesn’t know.”
It’s long been argued that those who aspire to operate a government budget – be it local, state, or federal – ought to have some successful business experience in the private sector. As we can see in Washington, a professional background as a “community organizer” just doesn’t cut it.
We’ve long asked (facetiously): If spending billions (or trillions) in the name of national prosperity is a good thing, wouldn’t spending 10 times as much be a better thing?
The honest answer, however painful in the short term, is no. For those public officials unenlightened on the topic, government does not create wealth. It only taxes the effort of those who do. And if you tax (and spend) to excess, deficits shall follow you all of your days.
Today’s voting Americans ought to be writing cards of apologies to their grandchildren for the fiscal albatross we are bequeathing them.
There are many reasons why few in public offices are willing to stomach reductions in spending. The first and most obvious is this: Spending other people’s money is easy. Another reason is similarly obvious: Campaigning and/or administrating on a platform of spending cuts is usually a political taboo. It may work once for the challenger during a “turn-the-rascals-out” campaign. But once the challenger takes office, he/she learns to play by a different set of rules.
Take the “historic” 104th Congress. This was, of course, the Newt Gingrich-led clan that won the 1994 midterm elections touting its Contract with America. The 104th was one of the reasons Bill Clinton gets some credit for coming close to a balanced budget. The Democrat president and the GOP Congress managed to find common ground on welfare reform, defense spending and other issues.
Trouble was, though, once the Republicans regained a congressional majority for the first time in four decades, many of them forgot all about their campaign promises. (And we’ve witnessed similar memory loss on the local level.)
At one recent local public meeting, there were praises of annual spending increases of 22 percent for nearly a 20-year period. Sadly, there was not a single “thank you, taxpayers.”
There’s an interesting story (several, actually) in the May 17 National Review.
Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Josh Barro writes about what happens when a state governor attempts something so daring as simply holding the line on spending.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had a death wish placed on him after suggesting a one-year freeze on compensation for public teachers.
According to data collected by Barro, the New Jersey teachers average more than $60,000 a year plus tremendous benefits, including 100 percent of their health insurance paid by the school districts (i.e. taxpayers).
Barro writes, “Most public employees could be excused for not noticing the recession, given the strong employment and wage growth their sector has experienced over the past several years and continues to enjoy.”
A few friends who have long enjoyed their income and benefits as public employees maintain they are not overly compensated. They say the private sector is simply under-compensated. They’ll get no argument from those of us in the private sector. However, when those who work without such receipts of the dole must work five months or more each year just to satisfy their respective tax obligations, there’s precious little time left on the calendar to join the more affluent sector.
(And, please, let’s stop pointing fingers at the small handful of CEOs who rake in millions a year simply by counting beans. In the grand scheme of things, they are few and far between. Moreover, data from both the state of Ohio and the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics show a growing wage disparity.)
Whether it’s teachers in New Jersey or certain public employees in Ohio, one thing’s for certain: Taxpayers are not in the mood to vote more of their wages over to any government entity. The taxpayers’ message is clear: Cut spending.
As Barro concludes: “With voter antipathy to tax increases high and growing, politicians in both parties are likely to find that taking on the unions is the path of least political resistance. In the next two years, watch for fiscal restraint to become New Jersey’s surprising new export.”
I wonder if Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland or anyone in the Ohio General Assembly has looked at the Barro report. Probably not. We still like to rely on federal stimulus money here in the Buckeye State. But that well’s gone dry. And so has the money pit of additional tax levies. Voters are quite clear on that one.
The state auditor has recently instructed the Scioto County commissioners to cut $1.4 million in spending. The county is in a fiscal emergency with a budget deficit of more than $3 million. Locally, the city of Hillsboro auditor projects a pending budget deficit of more than half a million dollars. If no action is taken, that number will surely inch closer to the $1 million mark – and soon.
It ain’t politics; it’s arithmetics.
Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.[[In-content Ad]]