I just saw a report on one of the cable news stations about how crime rates are creeping up across the country–especially the domestic abuse, disorderly conduct, assault, vandalism, etc. that we would expect to see climb during times of economic turmoil. It’s a predictable phenomenon when unemployment is up, especially unemployment among part-time and seasonal employees (you know, all those jobs that are supposed to keep kids off the streets). The unemployed have more stress, are more likely to drink and use drugs, are just generally more likely to get into trouble. Compounding these factors is the fact that charitable contributions–including to charities designed to help at-risk kids and struggling families–drop precipitously during times of economic turmoil. And while it’s mostly relatively minor crime for now, you can bet that next year’s violent crime and murder rates are going to spike.
So what is the natural reaction of states and communities to the poor economic times that cause an increase in crime? Why naturally, they cut back on police budgets, community organizing activities, and other anti-crime measures. After all, we all need to “tighten our belts” when times are bad!
That’s what conservatives say. And it’s exactly wrong.
When economic times get bad, the demand for all kinds of government services increases. Crime goes up, demanding more money for police, courts, and anti-crime measures. Unemployment goes up increasing the demand for government provided food, health care, and anti-poverty programs. The rising unemployment rate also drives up college applications, increasing the demand for student loans. Public transportation ridership increases, driving up the demand for local infrastructure. The number of bankruptcies and foreclosures increases, driving up demand for civil courts. You get the point here.
When economic times are bad, the exact wrong thing to do is for government to cut back on services. Doing so only serves to exacerbate the problems created by the economic turmoil. Because if I know that a crime wave is coming, the last thing we ought to do is lay off police officers.
The problem is, when times are good people say ‘we have budget surpluses we should spend them’ (because there are always more things that need doing than government has money to do). So, we spend more during down times, and also more during good times, and any economic condition becomes an excuse for more government action. And once you create a program, its much much harder to get rid of it than never creating it at all (once people become reliant on a program cutting it hurts more than if it had never been there).
So, while I agree that perhaps we should be careful about what services are cut back on (maybe not decreasing police during a crime wave) tough times ought to be used as an impetus to review spending and reduce government services in general.
At the federal level I agree that it’s harder to get rid of programs than to have not made them at all. I don’t think that’s true at the local level. Programs die all the time. Even succesful programs die for lack of being the next big thing.
“tough times ought to be used as an impetus to review spending and reduce government services in general.”
My Keynesian instincts insist that the good times are when we ought to encourage that impulse to review spending and reduce government services, but I agree that it does tend to be easier to do so (politically speaking) when times are bad.
That being said, I’m not so sure that federal government programs are not easily gotten rid of. I think that entirely depends on who likes the program and who doesn’t like the program–which is exactly what matters at the local level. Yes, if the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations committee likes something, there is a good chance that it is impossible to kill–but in most cities, the same thing could be said of the chair of the city council. On the other hand, their are countless infrastructure, weapons systems, and community development programs that were funded for a year or two because someone fought for them and then quietly killed because their primary patron lost interest (or reelection). It’s also trivial to put sunset clauses onto budget items or programs, to guarantee that their lifespan will not outlast their usefulness.
I will also point out that the impetus for the last decade hasn’t been to say that “we have budget surpluses, we should spend them”; instead, the trend at both the federal and local level has been to say “we have budget surpluses, let’s cut taxes”. And as hard as it is to cut spending, it’s much more difficult to raise taxes. The California budget, for instance, still hasn’t recovered from the tax-cuts they gave themselves when the state was raking in money hand-over-fist during the .com boom.