[Moneyguy1]

Len, you may be tired of the "local taxes went up" argument.

However, since I am the one with public sector experience, and get tired of the "private sector can do things more efficiently" argument, you might want to get some experience in the field. In more than one City, when bids went out for refuse collection, for example, the City union won on cost, and those bids included equipment, maintenance and benefits as well as wages.

Necessary public services is a zero sum game. No matter what the source, the money has to come from somewhere. Efficiency? Let's hear the complaints when a cop isn't at the door in 10 minutes because your car was keyed, or a fire truck doesn't arrive in three minutes, or the trash collection is late, or the potholes aren't fixed. And, as far as public projects...When was the last time you didn't hear the public b**ch that the roads were too narrow, the downton looked terrible, commute times were too long, we need this, we need that.....People are never satisfied.

Here in Pima County, the City of Tucson, for example, concocted a budget and almost blindsided the County by trying to shift library costs without consulting said County. Why? The reasoning was less State aid, and the continuing need for maintaining basic services. Believe it or not, most local governments have very little in the way of "fat", particularly in smaller communities; the public will not stand for it. Make your way up the ladder and things get a bit different. The more remote the level of government, the less responsive it is.

I will, guardedly, agree with school districts. There is less desire on the part of schools to rein in costs since they know that they are dealing with a very "hot button" issue. If school districts were departments of the community in which they were located, there might be a chance for some degree of fiscal accountability. And do not place the total blame on the teachers. We used to joke about School Superintendents. They would come in (carpetbaggers, usually), stay a couple of years, implement a "plan" and leave before the results could be measured. Then, if things went well, they would show how brilliant their plan was. If things did not go well, then their plan was not followed. Based on that, the next district would hire them at ever increasing salaries and perks.

Such is the public sector. LIke the private sector, there are those who do their best to excel, and there are those who are slackers. But I can define one basic differnce at least at the local level: The Mayor of a City of, say, half a million people with a workforce of 3 or four thousand is not paid near as much as a CEO of a comparable private enterprise, nor does he have the ability to "hide" expenses. The public official lives in a virtual fishbowl.