In states or counties that have cut public expenses to the bone - How's that working out?

Assumedly there are counties or parishes somewhere in the US where there is a political consensus to reduce public expenditures as much as possible, and action has been taken toward this goal.

If this has been done what are the results so far? Is the quality of life improving or degrading?

There was an interesting NPM story on Latvia, and how austerity, in affecting everyone, didn’t really hurt as badly as anyone would have thought. Lots and lots of people are opening little two-table restaurants. The economy is bootstrapping itself by everyone selling everyone else lunch.

I don’t think it would work that way in America…

Sell each other lunch? We can’t all be McDonald’s!

Degrading, and resulting in begging from the Federal government for rescue. Example.

Not enough money to maintain order, not enough to deal with emergencies, services shut down, and they prop up what’s left by begging the Feds for help. Just another example of the parasitic and destructive nature of the Right.

In several places, it doesn’t seem to be working out all that well, and the usual suspects (e.g., Der Trihs) are using it as proof that fiscal conservatism is not a workable way to run a government. However, these towns are in no way, shape, or form doing things the way any fiscal conservative would want them to. Fiscal conservatism is about reducing the size of government so that it only performs essential services, it’s not about having a bloated government until it can no longer be afforded and then willy-nilly shutting down certain services because the government’s revenue is needed to pay for pension benefits.

In short, nothing about the current situation with US cities says anything about the workability of the fiscal conservative position, but those with an ax to grind will grind away in any event. Funny how those same people don’t seem to say a word about what the events right now in several European countries say about their own political philosophy.

We have a couple of 1950’s suburbs here that mainly lived on tax revenuse from now-defunct shopping malls or manufacturing plants. It’s pretty easy to see the slide into what you might call “genteel poverty.”

Non-critical jobs don’t get filled, so parks and municipal buildings don’t get maintained, and start to look run down. It gets harder and takes longer to deal with the local government.

Street maintenance gets cut back and street lights get turned off.

Fire and police budgets get cut, so turnover increases as experienced staff leave for better jobs.

Somewhere along this line the suburb hits a tipping point, where housing prices start to drop, which means property tax revenues go down even further, which accelerates the downward spiral.

These are just small suburbs. They aren’t responsible for also trying to maintain a liobrary, health department, school system, water or electric utilities, etc. Those government bodies are also having their own problems.

The problem is that the government can’t unilaterally reduce public employee salaries. If they could, then there wouldn’t be a problem.

But they can try.

Interesting there’s no mention of the mayor or city council taking a cut.

After some googling, it appears the mayor did cut his own pay to the same level.

And when public employees can’t pay their mortgages? What happens to land prices?

Ever hear the word “procyclical”? Or, more to the point, “vicious cycle”? If we all cut back because there’s a downturn, there will be a deeper downturn. Then what? Do it again?

Your idealism is touching. But fiscalcons are as big a bag of liars as public-employee-union “progressives,” with the added fillip of rarely being able to balance their own budgets. I’m from a “red state.” Bunch of disgusting incompetents, you have no idea.

Why would anyone want to work for a local government that could do that?

A lot of this really depends on who is defining fat and lean when it comes to the budget. In Texas, apparently, “essential” spending is whatever Gubner Good Hair likes, or whatever his friends have their fingers in. If you’re one of Perry’s friends or you donate to his campaign, and your company makes a vaccine, why then, Perry will try to force every 11-12 year old schoolgirl in the state to GET that vaccine.

We all know he’s a whore, we’re just haggling on the price now.

  1. If a pay cut would cause them to default on their mortgages, then they are poor financial planners.

  2. They could always sell to someone who CAN afford the mortgage.

Then they can find a different job. Someone new will be happy to work at your new salary.

Hmmm, I heard on NPR that the mayor was reducing his own pay, but I may be mistaken in that.

Really? How about after the fifth pay cut? What do you think “unilateral” means? It means they don’t get a say in their pay. No labor negotiation. Just a pay cut whenever the government wants.

Not if there aren’t enough such persons in the present market. Have you been asleep since 2008?

So then there must be a lot of towns, cities, villages, and counties that have cut most non-essential services and are thriving. Care to name a couple?

His post is his cite, do you own damn research.

This isn’t GD or GQ where he’d no doubt be coughing up citations left and right, he’s here to make claims, not back them up.

What claim did I make?