Tinkering with Taxes

Return on investment

Taxes cannot be cut enough to satisfy people who think their government is doing a lousy job. The challenge for political leaders is to so impress the public with the effectiveness of government that they are happy to invest more with you. Why is Toyota poised to become the biggest car seller in America? It's not because Toyotas are cheaper.

Gaetz ran for the school board in 1994 advocating what he calls "the biggest tax increase this county's ever seen," but on two conditions. First, it would be imposed by a referendum, and second, there would be "a contract with the community, signed by every school board member" on how it would be used. Okaloosa built new classrooms to replace trailers and came in nearly 10% under budget. When Gaetz finished six years as superintendent in 2006, Okaloosa's schools were the highest rated in the state, and the teachers were among the highest paid.

That was a local government that delivered for the taxpayers.

The same day Gaetz commented on the "failure in the political system," Senate Democratic leader Steve Geller of Hallandale Beach was declaring, "I don't think local governments have been doing a good enough job of projecting where the cuts are coming from." He cited one poll in which people guessed where governments were spending money. Respondents guessed administration was 30% to 40%, but it's really 5% to 10%. On police and fire, they guessed one-fourth, but it's actually more like two-thirds.

Also that day, Mayor Baker, a Republican attentive to data on his government's performance, penned a column for his local newspaper in which he noted that St. Petersburg had reduced millage rates in 14 of the past 17 years.

"Despite improving services at all levels, and ushering in a historic renaissance, we have budgeted 57 fewer employees than we had six years ago when our team took office," he wrote. He said 95% of the spending increase in the past six years was in five categories: Fuel, property insurance for city structures, medical insurance for employees, higher pension costs because of lower projected investment returns, and local police.

But that dull-edged argument is not the same as convincing citizens they're getting great value for their money. Maybe Baker's constituents immediately grasped their supposed good fortune, or maybe they didn't. But that really is the point. The Legislature has no business here. The issue is between local officials and their constituents.

The Legislature's property-tax "reform" of 2007 is likely to prove as unsatisfying as its insurance "reform" from the January special session. Someday we'll be back to noting that our roads and sewers and other infrastructure continue to fall behind our population growth rates, that we remain near the bottom on the quality of our K-12 schools and lack a first-rate public or private university, that we have failed to manage sprawl and urban design.

We might even wonder if mediocre government is costing us valuable time and money as residents and businesses, in everything from commuting and delivery costs to the availability of good jobs and a skilled workforce.

If there's a taxpayer rebellion out there, it's not about the last few dollars on a property tax bill but about the idea that government at all levels is mired in myopia and self-satisfaction while our economic prospects and quality of life deteriorate. Tinkering with the allocation of the burdens and benefits of government doesn't change much except to further obscure the accountability of government to the citizens it is supposed to serve.

Tags: Politics & Law, Government/Politics & Law