The following is one of my favorites from the comic strip named ZITs. A must read for any parent with teenage kids.
Now I love spending on my children, seeing them so happy and having them truly appreciating me. (or at least my wallet) How can someone not want to do this? I mean, they think they really need those events and items, don’t they? Won’t I harm them by limiting them? And I love that great feeling!!!
Then reality hits and crashes my party!!! It is at this time that I remember we have ~3 years to turn this typical teenager into a functional early adult. And therefore as a responsible parent, it is my job to say no and play Scrooge often. How else will she learn the value of work, budgeting, responsibility, etc?
The simple reality is that a normal teenager could very happily spend an unlimited amount of cash on things and activities that they think they really need!!! In this way I think they are very similar to Politicians...
The simple reality is that a normal Politician could very happily spend an unlimited amount of cash on things and activities that they think they really need!!! With this in mind, maybe the only way to hold politicians accountable is to limit their funding. Imagine the extreme alternative... If the politicians had unlimited funds from us citizen's (ie Parents), do you really think they would run out of programs, projects, buildings, wars, parks, museums, etc.... Do you think they would work to be productive, efficient, responsible, etc or would they just try to make everyone happy?
It is likely that J has made a very good point, though of course are we willing to have kids lose programs, equipment, Teachers, etc while the Politicians, Boards, Admins and Teachers (ie Union) struggle to become mature responsible "adults"??? Thoughts?
5 comments:
Interesting lens, but it's not a good analogy, imo. The teenager comparison is squishy at best and is kind of insulting to those who take on the generally thankless task of political office. But to play it out, I guess it's more akin to giving your child a reasonable allowance and expecting him/her to make those funds cover day to day food/clothing expenses. No matter how well the kid manages his money, occasionally, a big expense will arise or the cost of buying those goods will increase or someone will take their money (unfunded federal mandates), and you need to decide if you want to continue to fund the program/child that you value and pass an allowance referendum.
My support for the recent referendum didn't have anything to do with giving money to politicians. It had to do with wanting to fund the specific programs and services in our schools.
Ah, but WHICH specific programs and services? Did those responsible and accountable politicians present you with a prioritized list of such programs, inform you of which were the lowest and would have to be cut if the referendum failed? Or did they perhaps threaten to cut the most necessary, popular and visible programs to extort your vote? How do you know that the District had already maximized cost-effectiveness and eliminated the lowest priority or unnecessary expenditures?
J. Ewing
Anon,
I apologize to the selfless public minded politicians, unfortunately I think they have become the endangered minority in a country of career politicians. The fact that the majority are lawyers does not help.
Now as for Federal, State and Local funds... They all come out of the same pockets... OURS
With this in mind, maybe if we raise more Federal taxes, those politicians could fund those mandates... The reality is it will still come out of OUR pockets... (ie Government does not create wealth, it spends and/or redistributes it inefficiently)
Which supports my point, they will create more mandates, programs, etc if they are given more money. By spending money, creating laws, etc, they prove to their constituents that they are doing "something"... The more money they spend on their district, the more likely they will be re-elected. It is a self fulfilling nightmare... (kind of like teenagers using the Parent's money to host parties and give gifts to stay popular)
As for voting for the local referendum... I'll keep voting YES because it is good for my children and my community. I am pretty certain there are quite a few wastes/inefficiencies in RAS that could be eliminated with no impact to the kids. However I am not willing to force improvement and savings at the cost of the kids. So I will just keep paying and applying pressure in other ways.
Just wondering, what is your rationale for believing that the RAS allowance is only reasonable, and not excessive? Also, how do you see improving RAS system productivity and efficiency? (ie motivators to help them accept and look for change/improvements... not just looking for more programs to spend on...)
Oh by the way, the State is indirectly using some of those local referendum dollars we voted for to fund the deficit. (ie shifts) Maybe we should have them raise taxes to eliminate the shifts... Oh yeah... That's OUR money too... BUMMER
One more note. Due to human perspective being relative, both the Teenager and the Politician typically TRULY believe that they are spending on CRITICAL things. Because to them at that moment, they are CRITICAL. (ie some personal passion or incentive) Therefore they can be wrong and very sincere.
My favorite pet peeve is bike paths in the country...(ie low population density) With there own bridges... Someone truly believes it makes sense to spend millions of dollars per yr on this... Whereas I say, add 4' to the shoulder of the rd... Oh well, another make work project. I hope they buy equipment from my employer..
Despite my constant badgering, I have great sympathy and appreciation for local school officials, particularly the elected Board. They are not paid nearly enough to make the hard decisions and tell people "no," that they cannot have this or that program for Darling Little Jimmy. So they decide to be all things for all people, except for the taxpayers. Everything is "for the children." Remember that phrase? It's true. Adults only matter when they're asking for more stuff. In short, the Board has no incentive whatsoever to spend efficiently, especially when they can fool the voters into another levy.
Similarly, the non-elected officials of the district have to be responsive to the political nature of the Board, while satisfying the labyrinth of State and Federal regulations that severely constrain their ability to spend efficiently on their sensible priorities, even if they knew what they were. Again, these folks went into their professions because they wanted to work "for the children" and therefore THEIR fiscal calculators are often far out of whack. In short, the taxpayer gets the short end of the stick, or no stick at all.
I'm reminded of the adolescent elephant joke: How do you stop a charging elephant? Cut up his credit card. The only way to make a school district fiscally responsible is to deny them the funds to be irresponsible. Unfortunately, many of them have forgotten how and the kids may suffer for it, until the adults "get their head on straight." Does that help? :->
J. Ewing
Post a Comment