Big government shows its weak side

Just as nature has a way of controlling overpopulation of any species, so does economics occasionally intervene in the growth of state and local government. Georgia faces a revenue shortfall of about $2.5 billion that may do what neither Democrats nor Republicans have had the courage to do — reduce the size of the government.

(Alas, since the federal government owns the presses that print U.S. currency, its growth is immune to even a Depression-size downturn).

Whereas it is easy to find ways to spend “excess revenue” during boom times, trimming Georgia’s expenses by $2.5 billion (or more) to balance the budget is another matter. It cannot be done without cutting services and hurting constituents.

As the General Assembly is forced by the state constitution to balance the budget, steep funding cuts in programs and expenditures will occur, and the process of deciding where to cut will be bloody. Already, legislators, lobbyists, advocacy groups and ordinary citizens are lining up to explain why funds should not be slashed from their favored programs. From health care to education, from transportation to economic development, the contest is to see which agencies best protect their funding from the budget ax. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth — and predictions of dire consequences — as the General Assembly finalizes a downsized budget.

The situation is similar in local governments, where due to depressed sales, building permit fees and other income derived from the housing industry have plummeted, but payroll, maintenance and operating costs and debt service are as high, if not higher than in past years, while citizens’ ability to pay those taxes and fees is diminished.

Government has grown because citizens demanded more services. They want expanded water and sewer facilities, better fire protection, improved recreation facilities, animal control, public transportation, road improvements and infrastructure for economic development. The public has shown a remarkable capacity for from one side of the mouth decrying the lack of amenities and from the other the rate of taxation, but as long as the economy boomed, most people were placated.

A recession brings a new perspective. It forces us to contemplate what government functions may be absolutely necessary, as opposed to those that promote a higher quality of life. For families in financial distress, quality of life now means the ability to buy groceries, make the mortgage payments and afford health insurance. What was necessary 12 months ago may be optional today.

If the recession restores governmental discipline, it will be a silver lining on a dark cloud. Even now, that may be wishful thinking. Governments don’t worry about being laid off. Maybe that’s the problem.