|
We
often wonder why so many otherwise sane
individuals spend so much time and energy
promoting “tax reductions” and opposing
“tax increases.” The recent, unlamented
Virginia General Assembly session was unable to
focus on the real transportation/settlement
pattern issues due to obsession with three
variations of the “do not raise taxes”
mantra.
Yes,
I know there are fine points to discuss but
every sound point was drowned out by, “We need
more money,” and “How dare you raise
taxes?” The blanket opposition to “taxes”
included opposition to reasonable user fees that
would curtail consumption of natural capital and
lower the balance of payments deficit.
Now
a WaPo Business Section columnist
provides the answer: It is all about extravagant
ladies' purses.
Here
is the story:
The
role of government is to promote the health,
safety and welfare of its citizens. As
Aristotle put it: “The function of
government (and of efficient human settlement
pattern) is to insure that
citizens are happy and safe.”
To
accomplish this goal, governments need to supply
goods and services (police, fire, defense, etc.)
and ensure that private enterprise,
not-for-profit institutions and public agencies
provide the remaining critical goods and
services (food, water, sanitation, health,
education, mobility and access, communications,
etc.).
Contemporary,
technologically advanced societies cost a huge
amount of money to build and maintain. The more
complex and technologically advanced the
society, the higher the needs and expectations
of citizens and the more it costs to meet these
needs and expectations. In a word, contemporary
government is expensive.
Without
question, there is a great need to increase the
efficiency of governance activities. There is
waste among government agencies, and there is
vast room for improving contemporary governance
practice.
However,
instead of taking action to address the problems
of outmoded structure and inefficient practice,
far too many focus on “starving the beast”
rather than feeding it a balanced diet.
Those
who want “better service” and those who want
“lower taxes” fight a no-win war resulting
in 50.5 percent election “victories.” The
incessant attack on “government” in all
shapes and sizes by the anti-tax advocates makes
public service seem like a bad thing and drives
away the very professionals and volunteers
needed to improve government functions.
The
most important goal of active citizens should
be to create functional human settlement
patterns and functional governance structures
because dysfunctional ones are the prime drivers
of excess cost and waste in the delivery of
goods and service both public and
private.
This
reality is eclipsed by an obsession with
“taxes.”
Now
comes a WaPo columnist with a succinct
analysis suggesting that the anti-tax phobia is
just a subset of a larger phenomena.
Steven
Pearlstein in “Why Status Sells Better Than
Service” uses wildly overpriced ladies purses
to illustrate the proclivity to spend lavishly
on status symbols and pinch pennies for
services. (WaPo 21 February page D1.
See End Note
One.)
This
is, of course, not the first time anyone has
explored the willingness to pay for luxury over
service. In the 90s, after co-authoring the
important book “The Winner-Take All
Society,” Robert H. Frank examined this issue
in “Luxury Fever: Why Money Fails to Satisfy
in an Era of Excess.” Back in the 50's Vance
Packard devoted one volume of his venomous
critique of “modern” society to “The
Status Seekers.” All this was preceded by
Thorstein Veblen’s 1899 classic, “The Theory
of the Leisure Class.”
The
reason the phenomena is more important decade by
decade is this: What was a curious trait of the
top one or two percent of the economic food
chain at the end of the 19th century, grew by
the 50s to have a direct impact on the top 20
percent of the population, and by the 90s to
influence the spending of the top 50 percent and
the fantasies and desires of the bottom 50
percent of the economic food chain.
Luxury
Fever impacts:
-
The
very well to do who can afford anything they
want.
-
The
Running As Hard as They Cans who can afford
some of “it”.
-
The
bottom 50 percent of the food chain who can
not really afford any of “it”.
It
is a tragedy that the bottom 50 percent short-change
needs for food, shelter, education and avoiding
jail to get as much of “it” as they can.
The
proclivity for luxury over services is a corollary
to the equally harmful phobia of “buying
cheap.” As we point out in “The Shape of the
Future” Wal*Mart (and Costco et. al.) is/are
subsidized by public actions but even more by
those who will spend an hour driving to a dank
warehouse surrounded by parking lots to save a
few pennies on items that are available close to
where they live or work. At least they were
available until the stores went out of business.
What
Pearlstein adds to the equation is that the
luxury/ service imbalance impacts all goods and
services including government services. He cites
the example of crowded airplane seats which
airline executives have told him are the result
of customers being unwilling to pay enough to
have comfortable seating.
On
the anti-tax front, some vocal Elephant Clan
members and some “conservatives” have
elevated avoiding paying the full cost of public
service to the level of a sacrosanct, moral
obligation. We are not sure they do it to garner
votes from the uninformed and the easily swayed
or if they really believe their own rhetoric.
Either
way, the current practice is not just bad
because it drives a wedge between the top of the
economic food chain who can afford all of
“it” and the bottom half that can afford
none of “it.” The practice is bad for
everyone because it is a prime driver of Mass
Over-Consumption and an excuse for Business As
Usual.
So,
what to do about the luxury-driven obsession
that is apparently rooted deep in the human
genome?
All
those who have wailed about increased government
spending and proposed tax increases in the past
year but also
-
bought
a luxury automobile
-
replaced
a perfectly good tube television with a flat
panel
-
bought
a Rolex that does not keep any better time
than a Timex
-
made
similar purchases
raise
your hand!
Now
keep your hand up and pledge to join the effort
to evolve functional and efficient human
settlement patterns, and combat Mass
Over-Consumption. These are the real first two
steps to lowering the cost of government and
everything else.
--
March 5, 2007
End
Notes
(1)
Mr. Pearlstein also hit the nail on the head in
a 28 Feb column on the drop in share value on
the 27th (“Yesterday Brought to You By the
Irrational Herd”). He did not do as good
a job addressing transportation on 2 March
(“Time for Northern Virginia to Take Road Les
Traveled”). But two out of three is not
bad for WaPo.
|
