What can we afford?
By Sean Pearson
Those tuning into Monday night’s Homer City Council meeting, either in person or via KBBI, heard something of a game-show atmosphere as our local government went to work. If it really was a game show, a good name for it might be, “Show Me the Money,” as a fair number of folks seemed poised with hands outstretched.
The public – packed into the building’s small chambers – consisted mostly of city employees, who were understandably there to safeguard their wages from a 2 percent cut. Many of them were no doubt hoping Councilman Kevin Hogan’s proposal to make them pay $250 a month for their health insurance would fail.
Both of those ideas did fail.
The community has spent the past few months pleading with the council to not cut off the supply of city dollars that sustains the heat and rent at the Boys and Girls Club. They’ve wrung their hands over possibly losing funding for the Homer Community Schools, fretting ardently about cutting back on waste in city spending while sparing their favorite programs.
The city is certainly caught between a rock and a very hard, cold spot. On the one hand, we all want city taxes to wrap around to cover police, fire, roads, libraries and public fringe benefits like community schools that make Homer a nice town.
On the other hand, we complain about the people who make that happen. Perhaps we even think a little like Hogan; wondering if our city employees are paid too much. Or maybe we just don’t think employees deserve a raise when we’re cutting things like Boys and Girls Club or community schools. Should the community be able to vote on matters like this when push comes to shove and hard choices need to be made? Either way, the city is in a losing position, because on this “game show” someone always walks away empty-handed.
Health insurance is already a hot-topic issue around the entire country. A few years back, school district employees were forced to increase their contributions for insurance. Asking the city employees to contribute to their own health insurance is not without precedent, but maybe $150-$250 per month is a little too much to ask right now.
Maybe that doesn’t sound like such a well-thought out plan, but neither does closing the Boys and Girls Club or leaving needed police dispatch jobs unfilled. Investigating whether to let city employees shoulder some of their insurance costs is definitely worth revisiting.
It’s easy to compare the salaries and benefits of our city employees to those of other municipalities, but how do we know whether or not it’s really a valid comparison? Data can always be manipulated to fit a certain set of standards, and likening Homer to anywhere else is kinda like comparing apples to gerbils.
It’s important to know what we can afford as a community, as well as what our priorities are. Several years ago, many of us began looking very hard at our community. In essence, we set about trying to figure out just who we wanted to be down here at the end of the road. We waffled too long about a Fred Meyer’s, and we didn’t want a fancy new town square. Maybe it’s time we figure out what we do want – as a community.
We need to prioritize, and not because we don’t appreciate our public employees. When it comes time for tightening up the budget belt, someone’s always going to get a bit squeezed.
But until we decide what we want, who we are and what we can afford, the chances of all of us getting what we want are about equal to winning the lottery.
Or a game show.
Posted by Newsroom on Dec 16th, 2009 and filed under Editorial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
13 Responses for “What can we afford?”
Comments are closed
This is basically a good editorial – very generally pointing out the obvious. The only area (IMO) that seems off, is the statement about “data can always be manipulated”.
The city personnel officer spends a lot time researching the data comparing costs for different communities and she does not “manipulate” the data. The fact is that Homer is one of the most expensive places to live in the USA. Fuel, land, rent, food and taxes are higher than other comparsion towns. Maybe its that pioneering mentality that makes people want to stay in spite of long winters and low wages. Balancing need and want is the job of the Council and each family in Homer. Homer did not “need” a new town square complex so the voters nixed it. Every large expenditure needs this kind of scrutiny in the future as Homer is not growing very fast and does not yet have the population base for rapid expansion of its infrastructure.
People may be upset with Hogan’s proposal, but that is basically the direction we need to be headed to fix the entire healthcare mess — a return to everyone paying for the services they need out of their own pocket. Before all these insurance programs and government debates, we had healthcare — family doctors. FDR did more to destroy this nation with his New Deal that most of us even imagine. And now the push is to make it worse. It’s an unsustainable path and will eventually result in a complete collapse of the healthcare system if we don’t change course. Policies, city and elsewhere, should be reformed so that people get a set salary — no benefits — and make their own choices on where to put it.
Blunder – Everyone knows that personal responsibility is a cornerstone of an evolving society – but so is the reality of majority rule. Our goal is to not make significant laws that divide us so close to 50/50 that it really destroys peace. We cannot punish leaders forever for trying to make things better and thats all FDR was doing. In spite of the fact that we pay the salaries and benefits of city workers – they earn it. It’s not that they are entitled to it because they work in the public sector – it is a function of pooling resources for a better deal. The city has made its deal – if you want to work for the city you will be covered under city insurance – you will take the pay the city gives you – and it some cases it could be less than you might get in the private sector.
The expense of healthcare is a completely separate issue from availability of affordable insurance. Kevin Hogan’s point is about neither – it is about establishing priorities for use of the city’s money. The underlying point where it all meets is the need for wider insurance pools with no more resrictions on getting in than a government worker faces. If you really think everyone should be on their own in life – then we could really save alot of money by not spending another dime on national defense.
We are not under majority rule. Although many things are decided that way, we are not ultimately under such a system. That is a democracy, which we are not. We elect representative to make decisions, bound under law that is above them. A minority of Senators can kill any legislation they wish. Also, in trial by Jury, which is the highest authority in America, since jury can actually set aside a law they deem unjust and declare a man innocent of breaking it, unanimous vote is the principle it stands on. Our Founders were right when they said majority rule was a system of tyranny. Two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner, was how one put it.
Maybe we shouldn’t punish leaders forever for their actions, but the truth is that FDR dragged out the Depression and initiated misguided programs which we are still suffering under and which set the precedent for more socialistic catastrophes like we saw under LBJ, and like we’re seeing today. Instead of identifying FDR’s New Deal programs and the expansions which followed as the root cause of many of the economic problems we’re facing today, Congress and the President are building further on them. FDR may have been trying to make things better, but he made things A LOT worse. We must recognize that. Good intentions don’t erase the aftermath of a disastrous policy.
You are correct about the aim behind Hogan’s proposal. My point was that it would be a really good thing if we could get all other entities such as employers, government, etc. out of healthcare coverage and put the responsibility on the individual. Instead, we’re headed in the opposite direction.
Limited government is essential to the survival of peace and liberty. The Constitution names national defense as under the jurisdiction of the federal government. But what about healthcare? It’s not in there, and the Constitution explains how issues not mentioned in it are to be treated. Healthcare is the responsibility of the individual. Every Senator or Representative who votes for the healthcare bill as it currently stands will be breaking the law and their oath of office.
Blunder – every thing we do is by majority rule – whether it is in a small forum like a jury – or forum like the electoral college. Certainly majority rule is not always all the people voting in concert all the time – but we learn alot about winning and losing under majority decisions without bloodshed. Worse and better for the country as a whole under FDR is a matter of opinion only – not fact. It may surprise you but even wholehearted conservatives are not happy with the winners and losers in healthcare because of the system problems – even if they want increased personal responsibility in taking care of yourself and providing for yourself.
franan,
I agree with much of what you have to say – keep posting -, but I have to reinforce some of the points I made. Most of the decisions in this country are decided by majority rule – that’s the most obvious way to operate a free society. But given that system alone, and you’ve got a tyrannical mess. The very foundation of political freedom is equality. Majority rule means the majority can do whatever they wish to at the expense of those who can’t outvote them. That’s not very equal. Therefore, this country has established many safeguards to keep the majority in check. You did not adequately address the points I raised. With the jury, majority rule is not in effect. It must be unanimous. If I’m accused of a crime, and all the jury save one says guilty, I walk out of court a free man due to the one. Also, I mentioned the filibuster. It used to be that one senator could maintain a filibuster. We now have a 41 senator filibuster, and there are complaints about it. I say go back to the one senator filibuster. The men who set it up that way weren’t idiots. It generally takes a majority to do things, but in America, there are foundational ways for a minority to stop the majority.
Finally, I’m not happy with the state of healthcare in America, but if someone thinks we’ve got worse care than the countries who’ve adopted socialistic programs like we’re trying to do, they can move there and enjoy their dream system. When the government can tell me to buy things I don’t want from them or a corrupt corporation just because I was born, it might be time to move to a free country.
The City of Homer opted to pay for health care for its employees as a portion of their wages – so they would NOT have to pay higher wages (if they paid higher wages, then employees might be able to pay for their own health care) This is the core problem for most middle class working people – that health care costs are out of proportion to wages. Most people could not possibly afford all the care received in this country. Federal legislation (current) will not solve this.
The City council does look at priorities at least they did at this budget meeting. They are charged with meeting the needs of the community, vis water, sewer, roads, etc. Those things require a workforce to supply and that is the 1st priority, painful though it may be to pay them a living wage. Of course the alternative is to stop supplying all these services or to greatly reduce them. This is just basic economics. Those that have water wells, septic tanks, snow plows and good enough wages to pay their own way will be the best suited to live in rual Alaska.
the city did not opt to pay for health care as a portion of wages – the employees opted to take health care as a cost effective proceedure with a moderate size group when health care costs were very affordable. No one ever considered that health care for city workers was deserved and now that its expensive its coming under fire – Wes you sound like a good guy but the public employment sector is destined for far greater scrutiny in the future – it’s not personal – it’s just a matter of money. The priorities of the city get lost – and we don’t need to let employees hold the city hostage for their salaries. The private sector is where most people belong and we should not make public sector employment be a safety valve for those who don’t want the risk of private sector employment.
Thanks franan,
As I said, either stop services or greatly reduce them – they will never be cost effective. I doubt any city in the USA does more than break even (as they should).
If the City (or any G.E.) were run as a business then they would not be in the red.
Your statement about public employment being a safety valve is another subject.
If you think private employers(as a group) pay decent wages out of the goodness of their hearts, you haven’t studied American History or union movements. Before you comment on that, lol, I think that everything gets corrupted after a time and unions are no different. It will be impossible for the city to supply the level of service people have come to expect if wages drop below a certain point – unless they use illegals or newly minted “legals”. The idea of reducing an employee’s wages, public or private should be the very last resort. In fact , its a desperate act by most failing companies I’ve read about.
the city’s problem is not with employee wages per se – it’s having too many employees for the actual size of the town and not having any way to reduce that number to a more sustainable and realistic work force. That started with hyped up estimates of growth and the same voices going into city hall over and over asking for more more more……..I think gov. employment has become a safety valve for too many – when we give a 2% raise to fed employees as we just did – with money we had to borrow – there is something very wrong. There is always some stress and strain between labor and capital – and yep – people don’t pay out of the goodness of their heart – BUT – in reasonable circumstances people’s hearts enter into the equation. Unions are certainly not held in the same regard as they once were – but gov employees deserve less pay than the private sector if they do not want to be exposed to economic downturns the private sector faces. And we can’t be uncomfortable that we need to remind ourselves of this from time to time. It’s just not personal.
While I agree 100% that Homer has too many employees(especially in the police and harbor officer) for its size, the problem is in the demand for more and more services. Its just impossible to deliver everything the populace seems to want without having people to do the Extra Work. In the summer(actually 6 month contracts) The harbor hires an average of 8 temps in addition to its full time staff of 6 w/ 3 office. The police are similarly overstaffed with full – time positions. This is only my opinion but CCTV cameras could take the place of some full time positions at the harbor. The idea has met resistance but is a sure way to reduce labor costs – its been proven in other places. IMO the real problem is people want and demand all kinds of services, and police babysitting but do not want to foot the bill – it just won’t work that way.
Your statement about gov employees “deserving less pay” because they are not “exposed to economic downturns” makes no sense as this is the very thing being discussed! Plus, they are exposed to all the other economic factors that private sector employees face. If services are reduced or cut completly, a public employee will lose a job. There is no guarantee of a job in poor economic times. If the public demands a service, whether its water or snow plowing or being able to call the 911 if you hear a car backfire, then someone will have a job and they have to be paid by those demanding the service.
the problem is that it’s not really the public at-large demanding these services at any particular level or any increases – it is a handful of voices for the most part. and the city does it because growing government is what they do better than anything else. I also don’t think employees should lose jobs before the pay scales are condensed or frozen. But if you look at what was proposed – the only thing not getting whacked was the compensation for city employees. Your arguments are all good – but the undercurrent in the community is that government employment needs to be taken down a notch.
I see from the Joel Cooper report that the new library used 15,000.00 in fuel oil alone.
Strictly from a cost-saving viewpoint, the new library has proven to be a bottomless money pit. When the all the costs of this building are added up, I wonder just how much the taxpayers have spent so far? Can you just imagine how much a “Town Square” would end up costing? Don’t get me wrong here; I think libraries and nice facilities are good for a community but Homer just does not have the population to support these extravagant monuments to progress. Wasilla has a nice, modest size library crammed with books and serves a much larger population. Homer has a very modern library that could serve a community of 100,000 easily. And it continues to cost a lot to operate. If everyone wants Homer to remain a quaint fishing village then major capital projects need to be downsized to fit the actual long term financial realities.