City governments often fly under the media radar. When the federal government is borrowing $40 of every $100 it spends and state governments in California, Illinois and New York are bankrupt in every way but legally, it is understandable that the fiscal struggles in city halls across the country do not become the talk of the day. But that does not mean they should be ignored. Among the countless examples of cities with busted budgets is Providence, R.I., where the city is contemplating layoffs of police officers to make ends meet. From the Providence Journal:
The Fire Department won’t fill any vacant positions.
The Police Department won’t promote any officers for the next 24 months.
Both have also stopped their training academies, but members of the City Council’s finance committee found more areas to cut Tuesday. The members urged Public Safety Department leaders to look for more, and come back with proposed changes next week. … The council plans to approve a spending plan for the year that begins July 1 by the end of June. Getting a budget in place on time maximizes “cost-savings and [demonstrates] that the city is being run responsibly,” Council President Michael A. Solomon said in a news release this week. Providence officials say the city is facing a $110-million structural deficit for the coming year.
The city is planning to lay off up to 80 public safety officers as part of its cost cutting plan.
Cuts in spending on public safety are particularly serious. It is part of the essential functions of government and should, as a default principle in government budgeting, be protected against cuts more than other programs. Many politicians fail to recognize this, which can lead to strange priorities.
In Vista, Calif., the city turned off street lights to save money – a measure sure to invite more crime – while spending $2 million on an amusement park. Little Rock, Ark., made similarly irresponsible decisions when recently it burdened public safety with 61 percent of its budget cuts while spending $8.9 million on a zoo, a golf course and a fitness center.
Another fiscally reckless practice is to award city workers lavish retirement benefits. Back in Rhode Island, the city of Central Falls was so generous to its retirees that it ended up under state receivership.
With these examples in mind it is easy to criticize the elected officials in Providence, R.I. for cutting in to its public safety budget. However, not even that department can remain immune against fiscal scrutiny. While it should be last on the list of items to cut, the city has made some strange spending decisions recently. For several years, Providence kept its public safety budget at around $100 million, but in 2010 that suddenly jumped to $166 million. That more than covers the $58 million budget shortfall in 2010.
If a $100 million public safety budget can keep the residents of Providence safe, then obviously it is a waste of taxpayers’ money to spend more. Beyond that, the city has made deficit spending a habit: every year since 2007 it has spent more than its revenues.
The one-time jump in public safety aside, it is clear that Providence has a structural spending problem. Such problems are often driven by political do-goodery and even outright political “spendoholism.” The city would be well advised to consider this and make long-term changes to its budget, based not on short-term ambitions to cut spending, but on the principles of essential government. Such principles separate the important from the disposable in city, state and federal spending.
