From the Everett Herald:
As the recession continues bumping along, tax receipts are continuing to fall behind what’s needed to sustain public investments in education, health care and public safety. The most recent state forecast projects a $3 billion revenue shortfall over the next two years.
The governor has responded with a call for “transforming Washington’s budget.” As this “transforming” process heats up, we’ll no doubt hear a lot about making government more “efficient,” like the private sector. And that should raise a big red flag, because an economist would tell you that efficiency isn’t really what you want to measure when it comes to governing well.
How’s that, you say? We want government to be inefficient? Well, not exactly.
We want government to build public structures and provide services that meet the fundamental needs of its citizens. That means government stands apart from the private sector focus on efficiency and cost-cutting in search of greater profit. (Indeed, it is that single-minded, for-profit approach that often results in increased and escalating costs for the public, such as BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.)
Some services are provided much more efficiently by the public sector — especially those that would never occur if left to the private sector to manage alone. For example, a colleague of mine has a child with Down’s syndrome. Both federal and state laws require that “each school district … insure(s) an appropriate educational opportunity for all children with disabilities between the ages of three and twenty-one.” That means that when my colleague’s daughter turned 3, she started receiving educational services paid for by the government.
Those services could include one-on-one tutoring and coaching for a special education student, learning in very small class sizes, tutoring, speech therapy, or help with “mainstreaming” into a regular classroom. It all takes money, and it all could be considered an economically inefficient expenditure. After all, the private sector would not assume those costs. Applying a standard cost-benefit analysis would not point to a pathway for this intervention or help — unless the parents were very, very wealthy.
But morality tells us something different: to invest in all children. It is inefficient, and that is good.
Another example: When there is a fire in the neighborhood, you can be sure you’ll hear the sirens soon, and the firefighters will be responding within minutes, if not seconds. They don’t ask for a VISA card before they put out the fire. But they are helping a private homeowner, as well as those neighbors whose houses might be threatened by an out-of-control fire nearby.
That’s because fire prevention is a public good, whose benefits and costs are shared by all of us. Is it economically efficient? Not necessarily. Maybe the house they save isn’t worth the money spent to save it, when you consider all the tax money needed to build or upgrade fire stations, engines and ladders, and the wait time for firefighters between fires. But that’s not the point. The point is that we can all depend on our firefighters to be at an emergency or a fire at our house when we need them.
There are other efficiencies in government that the private sector can’t touch. For example, all of us use our streets and roads to get around. Left to the private sector, we might have a few very well paved streets, walled off from most of us by tolls. But that wouldn’t do much good for commerce and for just plain getting around. We have only been able to build the transportation infrastructure we have because millions of citizens — past, present and future — have paid, are paying, and will pay for them with taxes. That just can’t be done by the private sector.
So when we sit down to talk about government efficiency, taxes, and what is “cost-effective,” let’s be careful. We may not be asking the right questions. Governments are not businesses, and should not be. They are not accountable to shareholders, looking for short-term profits. Governments are accountable to the citizens — all of them — whether they make $1 million a year or $30,000.
As citizens, we expect public structures and services, certainly for ourselves and our children, for the unlucky and the forgotten, and for the vast majority of our neighbors. No special favors to the wealthy, but essential public structures for all of us. That’s how government in a democracy should work.
More To Read
June 30, 2022
Family isn't one-size-fits-all - work-family laws shouldn't be either
June 24, 2022
The fight for reproductive rights is far from over