Recently, I spent three hours listening to brief speeches by members of group that includes urban planners and policy-makers, i.e. listening to the pleadings of elitist-interventionist rent-seekers. Here's a major portion of my feedback to the organizers, slightly edited. I apologize here for misspelling 'gubmnt' in the letter.
Dear _____
Let me begin by saying I recognize that I clearly come from a different discipline, with a very different outlook from that of everyone else in the organization....
Today's meeting really upset me. I heard politician after politician and urban planner after urban planner pleading for more money from the Federal government. And I heard lots and lots of stories about the importance and the "needs" of major urban areas. As I tell students, "when an economy's scarce goods are allocated on the basis of 'needs', the number and importance of needs multiplies a thousand-fold." This was little more than intellectual rent-seeking, for the most part, saying, "Here's why other taxpayers should help pay our bills."
Just because cities have lots of people in them and have lots of people working in them, that does not justify asking taxpayers elsewhere to support those bureaucracies. Self-purported 'need' doesn't make cities any more worthy of Federal support than it does farmers or Alberta oil workers or Maritime lobster fishers. All it does is create multiple layers of competing (and co-operating) bureaucracies, all trying to get a bigger slice of the take from taxpayers.
Furthermore, if every city got the money they want from the Federal government, they would, for the most part, be asking the Federal government to tax everyone in everyone else's city and then flow the tax receipts through multiple costly bureaucracies to their own cities. That is a negative sum game: each municipality may get more money, but that money has to come from somewhere. More money for the cities to spend doesn't come out of thin air, and not one single speaker addressed this point; all they said was, "We need it", and everyone else nodded their heads.
The other issue that bothers me is that many cities seem not to have saved very much in their reserves for unforeseen contingencies. This is especially troublesome for those cities which are legally restricted in their borrowing.
Of course they didn't see this [the Covid-19 pandemic] coming, and probably didn't anticipate the seriousness of the Covid19 recession even in January. But that's what reserves for unforeseen contingencies are supposed to be for! You put money aside "just in case". You don't say, "Oh we'd rather pay for our pet projects that the voters 'need' instead of building up our reserves."
Cities (and, indeed, all levels of government) have been profligates for a number of years leading up to 2020. Times were good, judging from GDP growth and declining unemployment rates. Those are the times when governments should be running surpluses and putting aside more funds in their reserves. Instead we saw government after government, at all levels, running up their deficits, spending as if the unforeseen contingencies would never happen.
Well, they happened. And now these same profligates, instead of losing their jobs, instead of resigning in shame, are begging taxpayers everywhere outside their own municipality to bail them out. It's morally reprehensible, but also from a practical point of view it's a perpetuation of fiscal ponzi schemes and negative-sum games that cannot continue.
My summary take:
- If the Covid19 pandemic taught us anything, it should be that cities need to build up stronger reserves for unforeseen contingencies.
- When you ask for higher-level government financial support, you are really asking other taxpayers to cover for you.
Addendum: Shortly after I sent this letter, I read this article, Just Say No to State & Local Bailouts, by former student, David Henderson. In the article he points out that mismanagement and capitulation regarding pension funds in states like California, Illinois, and New York are not good reasons to bail out those states. He and I are clearly in tune with each other, as evidenced by this sentence:
The most vocal advocates of the subsidy are members of Congress and/or governors of states with big budget deficits, such as California, Illinois and New York. Their budgets are in shambles. Do they have an argument beyond “we need it” and “it's a moral obligation”?