The School Board of Prince George's County, Maryland (just east of Washington, D.C.) has announced its decision to close eight schools permanently and consolidate their students into other nearby schools. Most were found to be underutilized (as little as 60% of seats filled) because there are fewer school-age children in the neighborhoods they serve. Originally, in January, the board had said as many as 12 schools could be shuttered, but after study and voter comment, that was reduced to 8, and the Board approved unanimously. This sensible decision is reportedly based on low occupancy but of course it also will save considerably on costs.
This school board decision is a purely local issue, but it reflects a story being played out in thousands of localities and in what's happening nationally. A local television station gathering those beloved man-in-the-street reactions found a stalwart citizen of PG county who said it "didn't make sense to sacrifice education for money." He failed to say how much in additional taxes he would be willing to pay to keep the underused school in his neighborhood. And there's the rub.
On the national level, as we debate next year's budget, and the pros and cons of spending more or spending less, we're going to have to keep in mind a dirty little secret: Government services have a cost, and we have to pay taxes to get them. Politicians of both parties prefer to ignore this irksome little fact -- they can't resist the urge to add a new program, increase benefits, begin a new war, or even legislate tax cuts (!), but they can't muster the courage to talk about increasing taxes. That's because they know most of their constituents are like Mr. Stalwart above. It's easier to follow the herd than to try to lead it. But is that what we elect our representatives for?
At the current stage of our budget deliberations, I have to credit the Democrats with being at least willing to float some trial balloons, however small they may be; and to give the Republicans a few demerits for generally encouraging Mr. Stalwart to keep believing in something for nothing. Yet it's not clear that Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat who's leading the effort to pare some spending from the Obama budget, is having much success thinking in terms of new revenue, either. In fact what he really seems to be doing is reducing the new honesty in the current budget proposal, resorting to the practices of previous administrations by just hiding certain elements of USG expenditures.
A cost-benefit analysis can't be done by considering only the benefits. A budget can't be developed without looking at the revenue side. Our elected representatives need to be honest in telling us that there is no free lunch.
Comments