Remember “mutual assured destruction?” MAD was the dominant principle of the Cold War: The Soviet Union would not attack us as long as we retained the ability to retaliate. They might surprise us and obliterate New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, but our nuclear subs and hardened silo-based missiles would respond in kind, turning Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Vladivostok into historical footnotes (if mankind survived to write any more history).
A kind of financial “MAD” became our consolation in the 1990s as China continued to accumulate foreign exchange, the vast majority of which was in dollars (or financial assets like bonds that were priced in dollars). At present, China’s holdings of dollar assets top $1.5 trillion, says the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
I sent my Nissan Quest to the crusher for a lousy $4,500. Yes, I could see into the engine compartment without opening the hood—but it ran like a top! Now the feds will have their way with my car. Some minion will replace its engine oil with sodium silicate and fire up the unsuspecting engine—until it seizes up, never to run again. It’s the automotive equivalent of “hung from the neck until dead.” What have I done?
As cars fly out of the showroom and the dealerships are clogged with eager buyers, many of us are questioning this bit of Washington wisdom.
When I was a child, my grandparents hosted a gift orgy on Christmas Eve—the whole family gathered in Chicago and every aunt & uncle brought something for ME. My cousins and I had eyes only for the pile of gifts under the tree.
Remind you of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)? The ARRA orgy begins with the reasonable assumption that the economy needs a healthy dose of Christmas cheer. Congress and the Administration joyfully decreed that we could save the world and spend money, too. Every lobby and interest group joined in the happy chorus. Presto! Christmas in February.
Yet “killing two birds with one stone” only works if you’re a very good shot. ARRA is riddled with Congressional multitasking, using the occasion of the stimulus (and its virtually unlimited spending) to implement specific social goals.
My 84 year-old mother has a bad back. She’s way beyond surgery, and her doctors are just trying to manage the pain. So every six weeks or so she goes back to the pain doc and he tries something else—a shot of cortisone this time, a nerve block the next, radio frequency ablation on the third visit (you’ll have to google it, I’ve got a word limit . . .). There is always something else to try.
She’s weary of the pain and becoming convinced that her case is hopeless. Yet my frugal mother also worries about the cost—“I can’t believe that Medicare keeps paying for all of this. I get these bills for thousands of dollars—but at the bottom, it says I owe $2.11.” As her son, I’m delighted that Medicare keeps paying and I hope that this process of trial-and-error eventually produces a solution.
Consolidating local governments in New York is a hot topic across the state. Proponents maintain consolidation is a way to make local governments more efficient and less costly. Opponents argue that services will be cut, local representation will be lost, and savings will be minimal at best. Every week, I receive calls from local government officials across upstate asking what is involved in studying how to share or consolidate services. Almost invariably, the caller starts out by saying, “I’m not necessarily in favor of dissolving or consolidating, but I feel it is my responsibility to the taxpayers to look at every avenue to reduce our local taxes.”
I’ve been in a funk since the 2009-10 state budget passed. The state’s elected leaders entered the budget negotiations confronting a potential $20 billion deficit, up from the $14 billion estimated when the Governor released his original budget proposal. That is, the state would have run a $20 billion deficit in 2009-10 if spending and revenue continued without changing anything structural (like tax rates or spending formulae). The faltering economy could no longer satisfy the state’s addiction to ever-greater spending.
Given such a dire forecast, we all wondered how the state would manage to find the money to avoid a major reduction in spending. Imagine our surprise when the Legislature and Governor pulled a rabbit out of the budgetary hat and increased budgeted spending by $12 billion, nearly 9% more than in 2008-09.
The Rochester community confronts problems that will test the mettle of our leaders in coming decades. Our core challenges persist and others will emerge, yet help from external sources will become scarce. We are thrust back on our own devices, thus on the ability of our leaders to forge community solutions to community problems.
The City of Rochester will continue to struggle with its central economic problem: too many school dropouts and too many graduates who are ill-prepared for further schooling or a career. There is no challenge more difficult or more important.
Students who leave school without the tools to earn a living for themselves and their families face a lifetime of struggle.
The economy trades a contributor for a dependent.
The city’s economic vitality will be limited by an ill-trained workforce and a crime rate that is fueled by desperation, resentment, and disillusionment.
I’m in the third month of my high deductible health plan (HDHP) experience. And we’ve had some big bills to pay—I’m thinking that we may actually reach that family deductible early in the year. No surprises, though. I’ll let you know how it turns out. (If you’d like to read my earlier series on this subject, find the link to our blog site at www.cgr.org.)
A good friend sent me a column penned by someone who feels differently. The title tells it all: “I regret enrolling in an HSA.” Author Kelley Butler is having a major case of buyer’s remorse.
Kelley liked everything about her old health plan—except the price: “I knew we couldn’t afford the premiums we’d have to pay to keep our beloved PPO.” So she signed up for the high deductible health plan with a health savings account (HSA) and “hoped for the best.”
Every day we see more evidence of the buckets of cash Congress has made available through the stimulus bill. Eager to see public dollars replacing lackluster business and consumer spending, our elected representatives have filled the pipelines of countless federal programs.
Public projects that were hopeless dreams in September have been reborn. One that has garnered particular attention in New York State is high speed rail.
In unprecedented numbers, communities across the state are looking at the potential for consolidating government services, either through shared service agreements or outright merging of governments. Why? Because citizens have reached the point where the high cost of local taxes has motivated them to stand up and ask that governments reconsider in fundamental ways who should deliver services, and how.
Study after study makes it clear that consolidation is not a magic bullet for drastically reducing costs and can’t provide the 10% to 30% immediate savings that many taxpayers want. Rather, research suggests that consolidation realistically reduces total costs by 2% to 5%, which critics use to raise the question – why bother? Based on 10 studies over the past three years where the Center for Governmental Research examined shared services and consolidation in towns, villages, cities and school districts across New York, I suggest five reasons why consolidation should be considered.
Monthly blog by senior staff on public policy + updates.
Enter your email address.
Remember “mutual assured destruction?” MAD was the dominant principle of the Cold War: The Soviet Union would not attack us as long as we retained the ability to retaliate. They might surprise us and obliterate New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, but our nuclear subs and hardened silo-based missiles would respond in kind, turning Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Vladivostok into historical footnotes (if mankind survived to write any more history).
Consolidating local governments in New York is a hot topic across the state. Proponents maintain consolidation is a way to make local governments more efficient and less costly. Opponents argue that services will be cut, local representation will be lost, and savings will be minimal at best. Every week, I receive calls from local government officials across upstate asking what is involved in studying how to share or consolidate services. Almost invariably, the caller starts out by saying, “I’m not necessarily in favor of dissolving or consolidating, but I feel it is my responsibility to the taxpayers to look at every avenue to reduce our local taxes.”