Government Downsizing: Not In My Backyard
Smaller government and local control are both considered convictions of modern conservative thought. That seems to be creating quite the confusion in the conservative Wisconsin bastion of
Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas wants to cut the Waukesha County Board from 35 members to roughly 19-25 members. The goal here is saving money (efficiency is also mentioned, but the point of that is really to save more money). The suggestion, however, seems to be causing some conflicted feelings amongst Board members.
Mukwonago Town Board member Barbara Holtz had the most telling response to the plan: "I'm all for less government that does a better job. And yet, I hate to reduce our representation." So, in other words, she believes that cutting government makes government better, but she's afraid that cutting her government will make it worse.
The issue here is maintaining local control vs. restricting local government. Cutting board members will certainly help to restrict local government, undoubtedly saving money. But doing so would also reduce local control by providing fewer representatives in an area where population is growing.
Even support for the plan is hesitant. Here's Brookfield Mayor Jeff Speaker on the issue: "That's not all that bad. I guess I'm open to it." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
These conflicted feelings over the downsizing plan laid out by Vrakas highlight the same tension that exists for moderate Republicans when confronted with the revenue restrictions amendment. Most of the Republicans who are on the fence regarding the amendment previously held posts in local government and are fearful of losing local control, which would happen if the amendment was passed. In order to do a little arm twisting, pro-revenue restrictions advocates--i.e., the business lobby--are undertaking a PR blitz to put pressure on these waffling moderates.
It will be interesting to see how the Vrakas downsizing proposal plays out in
posted by Seth Zlotocha at Tuesday, February 14, 2006
3 Comments:
You're missing the point. Every person who is in an Executive branch level prefers to see a consolidation of power -- specifically under him.
Ament wanted fewer Supervisors and now Walker wants fewer Supervisors. Vrakas is just looking for a way to consolidate his hold on power.
People who, without analysis, favor eliminating or greatly downsizing legislative branches are typically advocating that position due to either a candidate or a partisan loyalty. But if you really look at the net cost of each Supervisor to the taxpayer, you'll find that it is really nearly inconsequential in comparison to the size of their budgets.
The real question is, do you want more oversight, or less oversight? Apparently Vrakas wants less.
I agree, Jim, that most execs are interested in cosolidating power. Fewer supervisors means less potential opposition for execs to deal with on the board.
But you actually missed my point, which was really more about the response to downsizing by supervisors than the fact that Vrakas made such a proposal. The conflicted responses suggested to me a tension between the conservative values of smaller government and maintaining local control.
I like your enthusiasm.
I'd be nice if Jessica would allow for comments on her blog. It would be interesting to see how she would respond to questions like the one you raise.
Post a Comment
<< Home