From the comments people made about how local government did not do its job in dealing with the snowstorms in December, it is clear there is a disconnect between what the public wants and what they are willing to support. There seems to have been no thought given to the fact that the choices the electorate has made over the last several years have had a direct impact on the level of service provided by government.
People have been complaining for years, especially after Ronald Reagan stated that “government is the problem” in his inaugural speech, that our public sector is bloated and unresponsive. In this state, those folks have gone after the government budget and how it either raises revenue or spends its monies via the initiative process. They have done so because they have felt that government has not listened to their wishes.
There was an initiative to set restrict state government spending and direct the excess to a rainy day fund. There was an initiative to require all car tabs be no more than $30, regardless of size of vehicle. There was an initiative to raise the minimum wage. There was an initiative to give teachers at all levels regular cost of living adjustments. There was an initiative to restrict all government entities’ spending to no more than a 1 percent increase over the previous year’s budget.
For those who think government is full of pork, the knives are always out looking for places to cut. For those who know that government is expected to be all things to all people, there is not enough revenue available to provide for those needs.
The problem is that people seem to believe that both should exist simultaneously. In psychology there is a term for this: cognitive dissonance. The idea that government should be lean and yet full at the same time is impossible. Such expectations set governments up for failure and that is not their fault.
Why should any Kitsap government have sufficient staff and snowplows to handle all the roads in their area for a storm that happens once every decade or so? Is that really the best use of funds? The other piece is that these resources – people and equipment – are finite, so how are they best used? This is where the priorities are made: deciding what areas and roads get plowed first, second, third and down the line.
Not surprisingly, everyone thinks that their issue is the most important and thus they should rank near the top for service. That is unrealistic. There is no way local government can do it all for everyone all the time.
People need to learn what makes up a government budget and how it is run. There is no corollary to how one runs one’s own finances. This is because, over the years, rules and regulations regarding how and when monies can be spent have been crafted with an eye toward preventing abuse and ensuring funds are used properly. No such rules exist for using one’s own personal resources.
A prime example is the constantly misunderstood demarcation between capital and operating funds. Funds for capital projects can only be spent on capital projects and not on operating funds. It is a concept that seems very difficult for folks to grasp. Public servants are constantly explaining to unhappy citizens that the extra funds left over from erecting a building are not allowed to be used to pay for the salaries of those who may inhabit it.
We would all be better served if people took the time to educate themselves about how government is funded and what it can do with its monies. We are entering tough times and revenues are likely to continue to drop which means that government services will continue to be cut.
We must decide what are the priorities for ourselves and our community. Not everything can be done. What are we willing to forgo? What do we deem essential? It is easy to tell government what to do, it is far harder to give them the means to do it. Remember that the next time you tell a family member “no:” They can’t have what they want because other things are more important. The relationship between you and government is no different.
