One really does wonder if it is arrogance, inattention, lack of interest or what when we learn that those responsible for spending tax dollars don't spend it wisely. It really does seem that those in town management look at property tax payers as one big piggy bank. For instance, there was much chest beating on the part of some members of the Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager when they reduced the proposed 2014 budget increase from 4.4% to 2.78%. But, for those who witnessed the meeting as the Board reviewed proposed reductions, it seemed a bit of theater.
Town Manager, Russ Dean went down a list of proposed reductions that his department managers offered as items they could forgo. When they reached their goal of a 1.5% reduction, they stopped, leaving $250,000 in proposed reductions not addressed. Then when then Selectman Ferraro offered tens of thousands more in proposed reductions, he was ignored. It is difficult to find any good reason why the Board did not complete the review of proposed reductions, particularly when they were ones proposed by department heads saying they would not affect services.
There are some who feel that running a business and running a town are not the same. That is, a business manager could not function in town government. That is the dumbest and most arrogant comment one could make. Management principles are transferable and particularly in the budgeting process. It is a matter of attitude and believing and practicing in service to the customer. Not just in delivering services because it seems near universal that the Town delivers good services. But, how efficient and cost effective are these services? Therein lies a fertile area for some serious work. Hopefully, when the Board of Selectman set goals for 2014 they will consider some reaching goals in the financial area for Town management to work to achieve on behalf of the taxpayers. And, by the way, why did department heads have money in the proposed budget for items the town did not need to provide services? This should send a strong signal to Budget Recommendation Committee members.
No, running a business cannot be mapped to government. The former relies on market price signals, profit and loss, supply and demand. There is a natural and peaceful way for determining whether a business is doing well or not: when a business is profitable, it's because consumers demand it highly. When it is suffering losses, it's because consumers do not demand it, and it subsequently goes out of business, releasing factors of production to better entrepreneurs.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such feedback in bureaucracy. Income comes from taxation. There is no motive to change, cut costs, by dynamic. Bureaucracy is stagnant and bloated. The only "good" government is the nonexistent one. Read Mises' free online book "Bureaucracy."
Well, we have to go with what we have and there is no reason fiscal sanity cannot take place. Yes, income comes from taxation, but in the local scene taxation is based on the budge and warrant articles. The former can certainly be positively impacted by good management principles. Basics. Forget markets, supply and demand, etc. Productivity, alternatives, innovation, elimination of unnecessary tasks or functions. Basics.
ReplyDeleteI'm telling you that fiscal sanity in bureaucracy is indeed an illusion. I just gave you the reasons, and you're telling me to ignore them. You're telling me to ignore logic. Either you believe 2 + 2 = 4 or you don't. The only way to decrease costs and improve quality of any good is to open it up to competition. Government bureaucracy is just a legalized monopoly. Period.
ReplyDeleteYou are too focused on a libertarian viewpoint. I agree with you when working in a free market environment. I am talking about the skill set and requirements for those managing a cost center. Any cost center. Your view is what let's them off the hook and allows them to dodge accountability. After all, why should they compete when there is no competition. BECAUSE IT IS OUR MONEY!
ReplyDeleteA libertarian argument would be to say that taxation is immoral because it is coercive. No, I am making an objective, value-free economic argument. Where there is government, there is no exchange, and where there is no exchange, there is no cost accounting. Where there is no cost accounting, there is no logical, rational way to allocate scarce goods in production.
ReplyDeleteTake your previous example for DPW. How many plows should there be? Should there be lots of plows for few roads or a few plows for many roads? How much salt? How often to plow? How often to pave? Whether to pave or fix potholes?
When these decisions are made by government, the choices are purely political, based on (1) a tiny minority of the affected population and (2) how much tax loot can be raised before rebellion. This results all the waste that you see currently.
Here's another example: Mr. Publius thinks unreasonable what Mr. Chartrand thinks reasonable. Mr. Anonymous thinks unreasonable what Mr. Publius thinks reasonable. Who's right? Nobody, because none of us know what consumers demand.
Do you agree that 2 + 2 = 4, or not?
Again, the intent of this blog is to bring to the attention of readers actions taken by our Town government and shedding light on matters that may be of concern to taxpayers. What is written here is meant to get readers to question the appropriateness of the Town's actions. The ultimate goal is to get folks involved to attend meetings, express their views and to write letters to the editor as appropriate. Having a debate on these pages does not fit with that goal. Comments as a means of "weighing in" make sense and may even encourage the involvement sought. It would be insincere to say that Publius does not have an opinion, but Publius' opinion is of little importance other than to stimulate others to think and to question.
ReplyDeleteWhat good is getting everybody involved if that won't solve the problem? How do you determine what is appropriate? If you are not giving objective criteria, then it's all just opinion. If it's all just opinion, why should anyone bother to listen or agree?
ReplyDeleteTo me, it just sounds like you're not interested in learning or expressing fundamental truths.