Whatever happened to re-inventing government?

Image via Wikipedia

I will fully admit that I don’t know enough about the details and inner workings of city government in Columbus to argue whether an income tax increase is fiscally needed. Maybe the city really has cut everything to the bone and the only thing left is police and fire.

But 1) I highly doubt it because human nature and past history suggests otherwise and 2) the mindset of this Columbus Dispatch editorial is still wrong.

The Dispatch case comes down to:

• The city hasn’t had an income tax increase in 27 years.
• The city can’t afford cuts to police an fire.
• Economic growth requires stable finances.

The problem is that, other than mentioning that civilian employees have been cut by 30%, the editorial doesn’t explain whether the city government is run efficiently or effectively. It assumes that everything has been cut as much as possible and that the only thing left to do is cut police and fire departments and that the only cuts left in those departments is directly tied to public safety.

I find this hard to believe.  Is it really the case that Columbus has some sort of minimalist government where the only remaining dollars are saftey funds? There are no over-paid employees; no ineffective programs; no innovative ways to provide services?

It is also flawed because it ignores the reason for growth in Columbus. If I had to wager a guess as the to the number one reason Columbus hasn’t exprienced the decline other areas of Ohio has, it would the presence of state government (and likely the presence of The Ohio State Univeristy).

People have to do business in Columbus because the state government is here.  This effects a wide range of proffesions and industries.  And one reason downtown living can work in Columbus, to the degree is has, is because of all the jobs tied to government.

I don’t think the city’s bond rating plays such a big role and I doubt the efficiency of the policy and fire departments are creating jobs in Columbus. A look at areas between downtown and the outerbelt make this rather clear.

And raising taxes, even a little bit, changes the calculation about where people choose to live and work.  Are we confident that increasing the city income tax won’t have negative unintended consequences? Is increasing taxes going to attract companies to locate in the city?

What if instead of arguing that citizens and businesses need to suck it up and pay more for the good of the community the Dispatch argued that the city shold seek to become the most efficient city in the country?  Sure maybe Columbus has done better than the other urban areas in the state, but let’s be honest that is a low bar.

What if the goal for Columbus was to have the lowest taxes in the country? What if the mayor and other civic leaders announced a plan to rethink the structure and makeup of city government to streamline and innovate? What if the cost of doing busines in Columbus was so low you had to think about re-locating there?

The Dispatch editorial is an argument for the staus quo not for a new vision for Columbus.

As I said, maybe the budgetary realities are such that a tax increase is needed to keep the city functioning but I haven’t seen that argument yet. Cough up an extra $200 or the police force gets cut isn’t it.

But what if we were instead discussing a re-evaluation of what government is and does so that voters could pay less not more?  What if we had a more transparent and understandble budget and tax system so voters could trust that their tax dollars were well spent?

My guess is that the political reality is that such radical rethinking is unlikely and that the threat of cuts to public saftey will win out.  But that doesn’t make right.