Get Politically Active to Save Money

My state, like so many others, is awfully short on money these days. There have been budget cuts and tax increases in an effort to make up the shortfall. However, some of these cuts have threatened my bottom line more than others and forced me to become politically active to save my money.

Most recently, my county has threatened to shut down our local library branch. While this may not seem catastrophic, to an avid reader and someone who depends on the library for her research needs, this is a very big deal. If that branch closes it will mean an extra fifteen to twenty mile trip for me to get to the next closest library. With gas prices rising, that isn’t feasible for the long term. N

...

[Continue Reading at SavingAdvice.com]

This entry was posted in Personal Finance, Saving Money, Taxes and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Get Politically Active to Save Money

  1. robert says:

    Very good article. People often should get involved, especially in local politics and government where they can. Whether it is through a city council meeting or letters to the editor at your local paper, it is generally not hard to get yourself heard.

    My wife is from outside the USA, and she is often amazed how many people do not exercise their basic right to vote.

  2. Monkey Mama says:

    Great points!

    We live in a very involved community with lots of lawyers and educators. When it was clear the school board was completely inept, our community started a public charter school. Our kids will have the BEST K-5 education for pennies – which is what every citizen deserves. Most people aren’t fighting for their rights for a good education. I wouldn’t have known where to begin, and am grateful for the knowledge and hard work of so many of our neighbors. We helped where we could – and this guaranteed spots in the school for our kids.

    OF course, what was political BS a decade ago is now complete financial ruin for the rest of the school district. This year our school has shined more than any other year, as we have retained small class sizes and extra-curriculars (we control the budget – not the corrupt school board).

  3. Monkey Mama says:

    P.S. & not that we haven’t fought the school board every step of the way. At some point you have to give up and do what’s best for the kids. I wish I could say we were able to reform the school board and have a wonderful school district. In the end, we give up, but we have a wonderful school.

  4. Jay Gatsby says:

    The most politically-active thing you can do to save money is not to oppose new taxes, but rather to shine the light of day on wasteful government spending.

  5. fern says:

    I’m surprised you say that you use your local library for research. I don’t know what kind of research you’re talking about, but I know that I couldn’t count on my local library to have current titles. Meaning, their budget limits what books they get, and I can get much more up to the minute research by going online.

  6. Snowy Heron says:

    Jay Gatsby is right. The most politically active thing you can do is shine a light on wasteful government spending. One big problem that hasn’t gotten a lot of publicity is govt. employee unions convincing local governments to pay wages and benefits far in excess of what these individuals could get in private businesses. There was one police officer (among others with similar problems, but this was just the most egregious) in our county that went on full disability for a finger injury of some sort. And then he got a job in another community’s police department. So he was essentially getting paid twice. It was brought up in the local papers but it turns out that the police officer did everything by the books. But the rules that got him all of that would never work for a regular business. It would put them out of business, which does appear to be what is happening in a lot of state, local, and, I daresay, federal governments.

  7. Donald says:

    The ideas expressed in your column demonstrate the reason our elected leaders will have such a difficult time balancing their budgets, whether they be municipal or national. You don’t want cuts in services (and I’ll admit cutting library services is extreme) and you don’t want tax increases. You can’t have it both ways. Things provided by government actually do cost money and need to be paid for. And what you call ‘waste’ is very likely perceived as a very important service or benefit for another constituency.

    This is a personal finance blog. Imagine someone asking for advice about their personal finances but their preconditions are that: 1) they refuse to cut their spending in any way and, 2) they refuse to increase their income at all. Could you help them at all? Probably not. But that is what we are asking of our elected officials- no cuts in spending and no increase in revenue.

    Expressing our dissent is our political right but with that right comes responsibilities. We must stop demanding so much in the way of services from our government or we must be willing to pay for them. We are acting like children, wanting things without any regard to how it will be paid for or who will have to pay it.

  8. Jay Gatsby says:

    Donald,

    There do not need to be ANY cuts in services if we insist on two things: (1) cut wasteful spending, and (2) reallocate spending to support needed services. Unfortunately, our elected officials do not have the political willpower to make hard decisions. This is because they are, by their very nature, political animals whose decisions are swayed by opinion polls (or whoever can get more voters to the polls). For example, do we need to spend $500+ billion on defense? No, but there are tens of thousands of jobs dependent on weapons programs for enemies that no longer exist.

  9. Brian says:

    Both Donald and Jay Gatsby make valid points. I don’t believe that reducing wasteful spending is always (or even often) enough to afford all necessary services, but reducing wasteful spending should certainly be the first approach when funds are low, before increased taxes.

    That said, Jay Gatsby is very correct about the general attitude many people display about government: we want it all, but we don’t want to pay for it. One might argue that they only want necessary services, but who decides what is necessary? Clearly you think the library is a necessary service. What about someone who never uses the library? They might argue it is unnecessary and should be cut. Or someone who homeschools? Maybe they don’t feel the public educational system is necessary.

    It is absolutely our responsibility to be politically active, and politics absolutely has an effect on our finances. That doesn’t mean it is always the right thing – politically, or financially – to fight for what is most obviously financially beneficial to you as an individual.

  10. Donald says:

    Jay,

    When you say there there doesn’t need to be any cuts in services what you mean is that there doesn’t need to be any cuts in services that you think are a priority as long as we cut spending on things you consider wasteful. Unfortunately, those things you consider wasteful are important to other people. Why else would politicians fight to maintain spending in those areas. And let’s face it- true ‘wasteful’ spending makes up a small part of our budget. Entitlement programs are the greatest burden for our budget and will only grow more onerous. If we made meaningful reform in entitlement programs do you really think that people wouldn’t see that as reduction in government services.

    We have the politicians we deserve because we elect them and we provide the incentives for them to act in the way they do. We say, “cut taxes and cut spending… but not this spending that I derive benefit from because it is actually an important thing to spend money on.”

    I will grant you that defense spending is excessive but we must all be willing to shoulder the burden of reduced government benefits or increased taxes. Until we are willing to do that, no meaningful progress can be made in addressing our debt and deficit problem. Our gluttonous appetite for a free lunch must end.

  11. Jay Gatsby says:

    Sorry Donald, but I have to disagree with you. I’m referring to pork-barrel projects that are essentially bribes to voters in order for a politician to get reelected. Google the “Golden Fleece Award” once given out by the late Sen. William Proximire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Fleece_Award

  12. Donald says:

    Jay,

    I’ll agree with you that many of those things seem like a waste of money. But like I said, they are a drop in the bucket when it comes to entitlement programs and eliminating discretionary like that will have little effect on our deficit.

    The point I am trying to make is that people see pork barrel spending as bad if it goes to another state but a good thing if it comes to their district. We all must be willing to give up little but more importantly we need to get a hold on our growing entitlement programs. Saving $200K here or there, while it sounds nice, really has no meaningful effect on our budget.

  13. Jay Gatsby says:

    Donald,

    Every little bit helps :-) Seriously though, I agree with you that we must cut our entitlement programs, but disagree that this is as simple as cutting the amount of money directed to such programs. Increased efficiency and elimination of waste are paramount.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>