Bacon's Rebellion

Why Budgets Don’t Get Cut

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

A public hearing was held last night on Richmond Mayor Wilder’s proposed $9 million in cuts to non-departmental spending. The Richmond Times-Dispatch story on the hearing by David Ress does not appear online.

It’s not hard to see why budgets are so hard to cut. Ress’ lede is a “nervous grandmother worried about the daughter with Down syndrome who gets after-school care courtesy of the city.” There’s also the homeless woman who is now employed and has earned her GED, thanks to the city’s support of a homeless shelter.

Only a cold heart could not be moved by these stories. Somehow it just doesn’t seem appropriate to question whether alternatives exist, whether the programs are cost efficient, or whether government even ought to be involved in certain things that involve personal choice. Prioritizing also seems inappropriate to consider: human services, the arts, recreation, and economic development all have worthy aspects, so each gets cuts, instead of a whole category being eliminated to support higher prioritized ones more.

This is why government spending never declines and budgets rarely get cut.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

  1. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    The backlash against the “anti-government” movement continues.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Will is right: Government makes too many decisions on the basis of anecdote and emotion, not the dispassionate discussion of alternatives. Although I totally disagree with a number of Wilder’s proposed budget cuts, I respect him for questioning the need to spend city funds on so many peripheral things at the expense of its core mission.

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Dispassionate discussion would seem to require some numbers that haven’t been spun into some other dimension and aren’t imaginary.

    That takes us back to the previous discussions on transparency and metrics. As it stands now the metrics are so rudimentary, bad, misused or ignored that I’m not sure we can identify the core mission and agree, beyond maybe public safety.

    If we get the issues of metrics and transparency solved we will have reached the point whee we can have dispassionate political discussions.

    How’s that for an oxymoron?

    We only have so much money to spend, and Wilder is right to raise the questions. It takes a cold heart to prioritize – maybe we should call it triage. It’s a tough call, do you give all your money to the shelter to help homeless woman who now has a job, or do you use it for economic development lining some fat cat pockets so that there will BE a job?

    What metric do you use to determine the results?

  4. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    Ray, you’ve made some trenchant observations before, but this one now stands as my favorite:

    “It’s a tough call, do you give all your money to the shelter to help homeless woman who now has a job, or do you use it for economic development lining some fat cat pockets so that there will BE a job?”

    Sometimes, that’s the question in a nutshell.

  5. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    There are many parts of the political system where the “passionate” outweigh the “dispassionate”. Think voting. A majority of a small passionate minority decides every local election.

    Those with the most money decide who runs for office.

    Politicians rely on passionate activists to win office. Sometimes a passionate minority can propel a candidate to victory in unfriendly territory (i’d argue that this is what Cuccinelli does)

    Government spending is no different. Even an inefficient and pointless bureaucracy has employees who will be hurt if its funding is cut.

    The easiest way to cut government or make it more efficient is by transitioning. Take Welfare reform, for example. The program was changed, but people immediately cut loose. They were given time to adjust.

    You always have to assure people that the ground isn’t falling out from under them. The best politicians and reformers are extremely adept that this.

    Take Warner’s “tax reform” plan. He softened some of the concerns of the most passionate opponents with some tax cuts.

  6. Scott Avatar
    Scott

    Transparency matters.

    Richmond citizens are finally getting a fuller picture of how their money is being spent by ‘non-departmental’.

    Wilder is leading the badly needed political reform as promised– but who is leading the press/media reform?

    Once Wilder is gone, will it be back to business as usual? I hope not! But if we are going to have an active citizenry, we are going to need an informed one.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT