Simple Economics

Our government services are being cut, yet the money we contribute is not. In private business one has the option, if services are not up to a certain standard or if services are cut, to change to a different company. With government it is not that simple. We the people are forced to pay for services that are many times sub-par or under-performing. This includes an entire array of government services from roads, to schools, to trash pickup to welfare and countless other government programs. First, I will admit that some of these programs are necessary and they are difficult to solve. Yet, it goes without saying that there is waste out there. However, what really irks me is when services are cut, but my taxes aren't. You are still charging me as much for less service? This mostly applies to local governments in the forms of property taxes which go to roads, trash removal, snow removal etc.

The reason for these cuts in services is because of a decrease in tax revenues. During this recession the reason can be because of unemployment or for those special places like Michigan, it is not only unemployment but also because people are leaving the state. Yet, some of the elected officials, be it on city councils, county commissions or even the legislature will seek to increase taxes to keep services. There is really no better time to get the financial house of the government in order when money is tight. This is the time that our elected officials can really look at what programs we have and decide if they are truly necessary.

While some local government programs are nice, ie. art grants, festivals etc. one has to wonder though if that is truly essential. Instead of cutting those things that aren't essential to the public, services such as snow removal, road repairs or police are cut, while at the same time, we can all breath a sigh of relief because the local art grant is still intact (although because there are less employees plowing the roads, some many not be able to attend the art function).

Rather than get the finances straight, the government will seek to increase revenues rather than make the difficult decisions. One city council member from East Lansing, MI recently said after the local council voted to cut $2 million dollars ""None of us enjoy this, none of us took this position thinking we would have to manage this type of situation." Clearly no one enjoys cutting that kind of money from a budget and no one really plans for the tough decisions, but isn't that what our elected officials are supposed to do? Clearly the job isn't a cake walk, but that is why we are supposed to elect the best and brightest I thought? I have no sympathy for an elected official who whines about having to make tough decisions-that's why we elected you. As ol' Harry Truman used to say "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".

It is simple economics folks, if you take money from citizens (ie. higher taxes) they have less money to spend (businesses make less revenues and have to lay-off employees). So to elected officials around the world: we have no sympathy that you have to do your job, but in the process of doing so, remember that each dollar you take away from private citizens you are harming your electorate.