THE BIGGEST LOSERS IN DETROIT’S BANKRUPTCY

ABSTRACT: The biggest losers in Detroit’s bankruptcy appear to be school children, current and former city employees, and poor residents. The emergency plan for Detroit’s public schools calls for increasing class sizes from 38 to 43 students in grades 6 – 12. Spending on classroom instruction has been cut 19% (falling from 58% of the school budget to 47%), while spending on central administration has grown by 64%. Detroit’s workers and retirees have agreed to accept cuts in their pensions.

Since March, over 15,000 households in Detroit have had their water cut off. While residents’ water has been shut off if they owe more than $150, 40 commercial users that owe a total of $9.5 million have not been shut off.

This country spent hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out huge financial corporations (that had engaged in egregious misconduct) so that they wouldn’t go bankrupt. We should be able to help poor and unemployed residents of Detroit so their water isn’t shut off, to ensure Detroit’s children get a good education, and to provide reasonable cost of living increases for city employees’ pensions – all for a tiny fraction of the cost of the bank bailout.

FULL POST: The biggest losers in Detroit’s bankruptcy appear to be school children, current and former city employees, and poor residents.

The emergency manager of Detroit’s public schools has put forward his emergency plan. It calls for increasing class sizes from 38 to 43 students in grades 6 – 12. Since control of the budget was removed from the elected school board, spending on classroom instruction has been cut 19% (falling from 58% of the school budget to 47%). Meanwhile, spending on central administration has grown by 64%. [1]

Detroit’s workers and retirees have agreed to accept cuts in their pensions (reluctantly I’m sure). Regular municipal employees’ pensions would be cut by 4.5% and they will get no annual inflation adjustments. (The average municipal workers’ pension is less than $23,000 per year.) Police and firefighters will lose only a portion of their annual inflation adjustment. [2]

Since March, over 15,000 households in Detroit have had their water cut off. The Detroit Water and Sewage Department has announced plans to shut off up to 3,000 households per month. A recent 15 day moratorium on some shutoffs was announced, but it is temporary and some shutoffs will continue. A human rights complaint has been filed with the United Nations, where a spokesperson noted that, “when there is genuine inability to pay, human rights forbids disconnections.” While residents’ water has been shut off if they owe more than $150, 40 commercial users that owe a total of $9.5 million have not been shut off. For example, the water is still on at a golf course that owes $200,000 and two sports venues that owe $80,000 and $55,000. [3]

Water bills in Detroit have more than doubled in the last 10 years and an 8.7% increase was recently approved. Meanwhile, over 40% of Detroit residents live below the federal poverty line (roughly $20,000 for a family of 3) and unemployment is at record levels.

This country spent hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out huge financial corporations (that had engaged in egregious misconduct) so that they wouldn’t go bankrupt. We should be able to help poor and unemployed residents of Detroit so their water isn’t shut off, to ensure Detroit’s children get a good education, and to provide reasonable cost of living increases for city employees’ pensions. All of this, together, would cost a tiny fraction of the cost of the bank bailout – on the order of $1 for every $1,000 given to the banks.

[1] Clawson, L., 7/18/14, “Detroit schools emergency manager raises class size to emergency levels,” Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/18/1314775/-Detroit-schools-emergency-manager-raises-class-size-to-emergency-levels)

[2] Daily briefing, 7/22/14, “Detroit retirees agree to pension cuts,” The Boston Globe

[3] Prupis, N., 7/24/14, “Canadian group delivering water to Detroit to protest shutoffs,” Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/24/canadian-group-delivering-water-detroit-protest-shutoffs)

DEMOCRATIZING CAMPAIGN FINANCING

ABSTRACT: We need to change our system of financing political campaigns. Candidates need to be able to run viable campaigns based on the financial support of average voters, and without the support of the small number of wealthy donors who dominate current campaign funding. Many people who would make great elected representatives don’t even run for office because they don’t have access to the money needed to run a credible campaign.

We can make small contributions more valuable by matching them with public funds. The Government by the People Act (HR 20) has been introduced in the US House and would match contributions of up to $150 with $6 of public funds for every dollar of private funds. Campaign financing systems that match small contributions are already in place in states from Maine to Arizona and in New York City. They amplify the voice of small donors and blunt the influence of large donors. As a result, the number of people running and the competition for elected offices has increased. To encourage more voters to be contributors, a voucher or tax credit could be provided to each citizen to be used to support a candidate for federal office.

By democratizing campaign financing, we regain democracy by getting our elected representatives to represent us instead of big campaign donors. In previous posts, I mentioned the effort to raise $12 million to fund the Mayday PAC, which would support candidates for Congress who support campaign finance reform. I’m happy to report that the fundraising effort was successful and the Mayday PAC is now selecting the 5 or so races that it will target in 2014.

FULL POST: We need to change our system of financing political campaigns. Candidates need to be able to run viable campaigns based on the financial support of average voters. As long as the support of the small number of wealthy donors who contribute more than $200 (less than 1% of the population) is necessary, our elected representatives are likely to at least lean toward representing those donors’ views and interests, instead of the broader, public interest. Keep in mind that not only does the candidate with the most money usually win, but many people who would make great elected representatives don’t even run for office because they don’t have access to the money needed to run a credible campaign under the current campaign financing system.

One solution would be to remove all private money from public elections. Campaigns would be paid for with public money. Proposals to do this have been put forward and such legislation has been filed in Congress, but this approach is unlikely to garner much support and would almost certainly require a Constitutional amendment.

A more feasible strategy, supported by individuals on both the right and left, wouldn’t remove private money from public elections but would make small contributions much more valuable and make campaigns based on them much more possible.

We can make small contributions more valuable by matching them with public funds. The Government by the People Act (HR 20) has been introduced in the US House and would match contributions of up to $150 with $6 of public funds for every dollar of private funds. Therefore, a $50 contribution would provide the candidate with $350. To qualify for the matching funds, a candidate for Congress would have to raise $50,000 in contributions of $150 or less from at least 1,000 donors in his or her home state. The candidate could not accept contributions of more than $1,000, could not accept PAC money, and would be strictly limited in the use of his or her own money in the campaign. Including these contribution caps is essential to limit the role of wealthy interests and is a reasonable and legal trade-off for receiving public matching funds. A similar bill, the Fair Elections Now Act, has been introduced in the US Senate.

You can get lots more information and all the details of these bills here (http://ofby.us/) and sign on as a citizen co-sponsor here (http://ofby.us/citizen-cosponsor/). Contacting your Representative and Senators to let them know you support this legislation would be valuable as well.

Forty groups have already endorsed this legislation: good government groups such as Common Cause, public interest groups such as the US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, labor unions such as the National Education Association and the Communications Workers of America, and civil rights groups such as the NAACP.

Campaign financing systems that match small contributions, as these bills in Congress would, are already in place in states from Maine to Arizona and in New York City. They amplify the voice of small donors and blunt the influence of large donors. They also allow average citizens to run competitive campaigns. As a result, the number of people running and the competition for elected offices has increased where these financing systems are in place. This results in greater representation of the common interest and reduced influence for special interests.

To increase the number of small contributions and to encourage more voters to be contributors, a voucher or tax credit could be provided to each citizen to be used to support a candidate for federal office. The voucher or tax credit, in effect, makes the contribution free for the voter. The Government by the People Act proposes a $25 tax credit. Amounts ranging from $25 to $200 have been proposed. Increased numbers of contributors results in a more engaged and committed public, as well as elected officials who are more responsive to the public good. [1]

Using matching funds, along with a voucher or tax credit, would give candidates a way to fund their campaigns through small contributions. As a result, candidates would have an incentive to work hard from one election to the next to give the average voter (not just the wealthy ones) a reason to contribute to them. The increased number and value of small-dollar contributions can remove the influence of big money and big donors from campaigns. By democratizing campaign financing, we regain democracy by getting our elected representatives to represent us instead of big campaign donors.

We do need constitutional changes to control the spending outside of candidates’ campaigns. This will require reversing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions by making it clear that corporations do not have the same rights as human beings and that unlimited political spending is not the same as freedom of speech and can be regulated and limited in the interest of preserving democracy and preventing corruption. Resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment have been introduced in both the House and Senate. In the Senate, a constitutional amendment allowing the regulation of money in politics has been approved in a committee and is headed to the floor for a vote of the full Senate.

The Constitutional amendment process is long and difficult. However, right now, we can make enormous progress on the financing of candidates’ campaigns in a much easier and quicker way through changes in campaign finance laws. To create pressure for politicians to face up to this campaign financing crisis, we all need to communicate with our elected officials and also to support the election of candidates who will address this problem.

In previous posts, I mentioned the effort to raise $12 million to fund the Mayday PAC, which would support candidates for Congress who support campaign finance reform. I’m happy to report that the fundraising effort was successful and the Mayday PAC is now selecting the 5 or so races that it will target in 2014. [2] If you’d like to suggest a candidate it should support or oppose you can do so here: https://mayday.us/suggest-a-candidate/.

Reforms of our campaign finance system are critical to reclaiming democracy and moving back toward the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. In the current system, it’s dollars that matter; money determines who runs, who wins, and what policies are enacted. Right now, big donors – wealthy individuals and corporations – are drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. We must fight back.

[1] Overton, S., 11/13/12, “The participation interest,” The Georgetown Law Journal (http://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/the-participation-interest/)

[2] Lessig, L., 6//4/14, “What’s so bad about a Super PAC?” https://medium.com/law-of-the-land/whats-so-bad-about-a-superpac-c7cbcf617b58

POLITICAL MONEY AND INFLUENCE OF THE WEALTHY GROWS AND GROWS

ABSTRACT: The political money and influence of the wealthy grows and grows. Wealthy donors making large contributions of up to $2,600 directly to Congressional candidates’ campaigns represent the great majority of candidates’ funding. There had been an overall limit of $123,200 on the grand total any individual could contribute in a two-year federal election cycle. However, the Supreme Court just ruled that this limit is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. A wealthy individual can now contribute roughly $3.6 million directly to candidates and parties in every 2-year election cycle. (This is in addition to the unlimited money they can spend on campaign advocacy outside of candidates’ campaign accounts based on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010.)

Furthermore, a donor can gather checks from colleagues and friends and present them to the candidate along with his or her own check. This is a practice known as “bundling.” Often these bundlers pledge to raise $100,000 or more for a candidate.

Candidates spend 30% to 70% of their time raising money. If they can raise money in bigger chunks, they will. Therefore, candidates focus on the few big “funders” of campaigns. These big contributors or bundlers have more than an adequate incentive to contribute because it ensures that candidates hear their particular views and that candidates have an incentive to support big contributors’ views when policy is made.

The result is that our “democracy” is not representing us – the average voter. What we have here in the US is increasingly a plutocracy: government dominated by the small minority that are the wealthiest citizens. Coming up in my next post: strategies for reforming our system of financing campaigns to reclaim our democracy.

FULL POST: The political money and influence of the wealthy grows and grows. Wealthy donors making large contributions of up to $2,600 directly to Congressional candidates’ campaigns represent the great majority of candidates’ funding. Candidates for Congress raise only about 11% of their campaign contributions from donors giving less than $200.

Beyond donations to candidates’ campaigns, wealthy individuals can also give up to $32,400 per year to a national political party. There had been an overall limit of $123,200 on the grand total any individual could contribute in a two-year federal election cycle. However, the Supreme Court just ruled that this limit is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech in its McCutcheon decision.

Although the limit on a contribution to any candidate’s campaign or to a party remains (for now, see below), a wealthy individual can now contribute roughly $3.6 million directly to candidates and parties in every 2-year election cycle. [1] Through joint fundraisers and committees, wealthy contributors will now be solicited to write a single check for hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not a million dollars or more. (This is in addition to the unlimited money they can spend on campaign advocacy outside of candidates’ campaign accounts based on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010.)

A court challenge to the contribution limit on donations to party committees has been filed by the Republican National Committee [2] and a challenge to the limit on contributions to individual candidates’ campaigns is likely. If successful, these challenges would allow wealthy individuals, and perhaps corporations, to give unlimited amounts of money directly to political candidates and parties.

Furthermore, a donor can gather checks from colleagues and friends and present them to the candidate along with his or her own check. This is a practice known as “bundling,” and the donor’s sway with the candidate is, of course, enhanced by delivering these large sums to the candidate’s campaign. Often these bundlers pledge to raise $100,000 or more for a candidate – far beyond the individual limit of $2,600.

Imagine you’re a candidate running for political office. You can either try to raise $100,000 from a thousand people in $100 contributions (a big contribution for most people), or you can try to raise $100,000 from 40 wealthy individuals or via one bundler. Candidates spend 30% to 70% of their time raising money. If they can raise money in bigger chunks, they will. Therefore, candidates focus on the few big “funders” of campaigns, because with each big catch they can cover much more of their campaign costs. [3] These big contributors, now more than ever, will be national figures, not ones with any connection to a candidate’s district or state.

Edwin Bender of the National Institute on Money in State Politics notes that “contribution limits play a crucial role in … increasing the participation rate by small-dollar donors.” [4] So as the Supreme Court eliminates contribution limits as unconstitutional limits on freedom of speech, the candidates focus on fewer and fewer donors who contribute larger and larger amounts. These big contributors or bundlers have more than an adequate incentive to contribute because it ensures that candidates hear their particular views – about regulation, government spending, limits on lawsuits, trade, workers’ protections, intellectual property right s, or whatever – and that candidates have an incentive to support big contributors’ views when policy is made.

In a recent study from Princeton (the largest empirical analysis of government policy decision making to-date), Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page conclude that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial … impacts on U.S. governmental policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no … influence.” [5]

With candidates dependent on big contributors for the money necessary to run a competitive campaign, it’s not surprising that policies reflect the interests of these contributors and not the average citizen. The result is that our “democracy” is not representing us – the average voter – and therefore is not working as our founders intended. What we have here in the US is increasingly a plutocracy: government dominated by the small minority that are the wealthiest citizens.

Coming up in my next post: strategies for reforming our system of financing campaigns to reclaim our democracy by making our elected officials beholden to us. As a result, they would have incentives to represent us instead of wealthy individuals and corporations.

[1] Lee, C., 5/5/14, “The fatter the wallet, the louder the voice,” Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/fatter-wallet-louder-voice)

[2] Money in Politics Newsletter, 5/29/14, “The aftermath of McCutcheon v. FEC,” Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/newsletter/money-politics-newsletter-mccutcheons-aftermath-primary-fundraising)

[3] Lessig, L., 6//4/14, “What’s so bad about a Super PAC?” https://medium.com/law-of-the-land/whats-so-bad-about-a-superpac-c7cbcf617b58

[4] Bender, E., 5/13/13, “Evidencing a republican form of government: The influence of campaign money on state-level elections,” Montana Law Review (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/Evidencing_a_Republican_Form_of_Government.pdf)

[5] Gilens, M., & Page, B., 4/9/14, “Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens,” (http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf)

INEQUALITY IS NOT INEVITABLE

ABSTRACT: “Inequality is not inevitable” is the title of a recent piece in the New York Times by Joseph Stiglitz. Our current levels of inequality – and the undermining of the middle class – are the result of policies and politics, not a fundamental feature of capitalism. One example is the recent bailout of the large bank and financial corporations with hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars while only a pittance went to homeowners and other victims of these corporations’ predatory lending.

True economic success is measured by how well the typical citizen is doing, especially in America, which claims to be the bastion of equal opportunity. But here in the US, the typical worker’s income is lower today than it was 25 years ago.

There are policy solutions that will simultaneously strengthen our economy, address the federal government’s budget deficit and debt issues, tackle our infrastructure needs, and reduce inequality. Tax reform is a core ingredient of these policy changes. (See details below.) It and other policies that can and should be changed will reduce inequality, improve our economy, and address other important issues.

FULL POST: “Inequality is not inevitable” is the title of a recent piece in the New York Times by Joseph Stiglitz, [1] a Nobel prize-winning economist. It is the final piece of a New York Times series on inequality entitled “The Great Divide.” [2] The series presents a wide range of examples that demonstrate that our current levels of inequality – and the undermining of the middle class – are the result of policies and politics, not a fundamental feature of capitalism. Other countries’ economies are performing as well or better than ours with far greater equality.

Policies that have increased inequality and weakened the middle class include the recent bailout of the large bank and financial corporations with hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars while only a pittance went to homeowners and other victims of these corporations’ predatory lending. More help for homeowners and the unemployed would have helped the economy recover more quickly and vigorously. We also allow corporate monopolies and near monopolies to exist and make huge profits while they ship jobs and profits overseas, avoiding paying US taxes.

Our campaign finance laws allow economic inequality to lead to political inequality by letting the wealthy buy political influence. And political inequality increases economic inequality in a vicious cycle: politicians increase corporate welfare and give the rich tax cuts while cutting support for middle class workers and the poor. The wealthy corporations and individuals increase their wealth, not by working harder or being smarter, but by manipulating the rules of our economic and political systems. As a result, for example, corporate income taxes have declined as a portion of the federal government’s revenue from 39.8% in 1943 to 9.9% in 2012. Furthermore, Wall St. corporations and executives were not brought to justice for their criminal behavior that led to the economic collapse, or even for their abuse of our legal system in foreclosing on and evicting homeowners, inappropriately, fraudulently, and sometimes in total error.

True economic success is measured by how well the typical citizen is doing, especially in America, which claims to be the bastion of equal opportunity. But here in the US, the typical worker’s income is lower today than it was 25 years ago. And the life prospects of our children are determined more by the income and education of their parents than they used to be, and more than they are in other advanced countries. The tremendous growth in income and wealth of the top 1% in the US has not trickled down, it has evaporated, often in Caribbean and other tax havens. [3] There is compelling evidence that the current level of inequality in the US is weakening our economy and our social cohesion.

There are policy solutions that will simultaneously strengthen our economy, address the federal government’s budget deficit and debt issues, tackle our infrastructure needs, and reduce inequality. We can improve economic growth, promote economic efficiency, and reduce unemployment through changes in our tax system. Tax reform is a core ingredient of the policy changes needed to reduce inequality. Such tax reform includes: [4]

Reducing incentives and opportunities for corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes
Increasing the top marginal income tax rates and reducing preferential treatment of unearned income, such as capital gains and dividends
Reforming corporate taxation to incentivize investing in the US (rather than overseas) and to close loopholes that are essentially corporate welfare
Taxing too-big-too-fail financial institutions to create a rescue fund (for future, probably inevitable bailouts) and to provide a disincentive for unlimited corporate growth and for speculative, highly leveraged financial activities that increase the likelihood of a bailout
Implementing a financial transaction tax to provide a disincentive for unproductive and sometimes harmful financial speculation and activity, such as high volume, high speed, computer-driven trading
Reforming the estate and inheritance tax to improve economic efficiency and fairness
Taxing pollution and other negative environmental effects
Ensuring the government gets full value when it sells public assets, such as natural resources like oil and gas

Tax reform is not an end in itself. The objective is to create a more efficient tax system, while simultaneously producing higher employment and economic growth, reducing inequality and environmental harm, and enhancing the efficiency of our economy.

Inequality is the result of tax and other policies that can and should be changed. Moreover, well-designed changes that address inequality will simultaneously improve our economy and address other important issues.

[1] Stiglitz, J., 6/29/14, “Inequality is not inevitable,” The New York Times

[2] See a listing and abstracts of The Great Divide series at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/?module=BlogCategory&version=Blog Post&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Header

[3] Stiglitz, J. 6/29/14, see above

[4] Stiglitz, J., 5/28/14, “Reforming taxation to promote growth and equity,” The Roosevelt Institute, http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sites/all/files/Stiglitz_Reforming_Taxation_White_Paper_Roosevelt_Institute.pdf

CAUSE FAILURE, BLAME GOVERNMENT

ABSTRACT: Government agencies perform many necessary and important functions. However, inadequate funding results in ineffective agencies. But the fault doesn’t lie with the government agencies; it lies with those who make the funding decisions. A classic strategy of the small government ideologues is to cause government agencies to be ineffective by underfunding them and then to point to their failures and say, “See government doesn’t work.” This strategy has produced the current crisis at the Veterans Administration (VA).

A similar crisis is brewing at the Social Security Administration (SSA).As millions of baby boomers are retiring, budget cuts are forcing reductions in access to SSA services. Since 2010, the SSA has closed 64 field offices, 533 temporary mobile offices, and reduced hours at the 1,245 field offices that remain open. Meanwhile, enrollment in Social Security retirement benefits has increased 27% over the last 6 years. In 2013, 43 million Americans visited SSA offices and 43% had to wait more than 3 weeks for an appointment.

Similarly, regulatory agencies that oversee public safety often suffer from insufficient funding to effectively perform their jobs. A classic example is the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which oversees the 525,000 bus and truck operators in the US. Inadequate funding cripples enforcement. While the number of buses and miles traveled have increased significantly since 2006, the agency’s under $600 million budget and 350 investigators have remained essentially unchanged. 546 interstate carriers are operating with violations above acceptable levels but 29% of them haven’t had a federal safety review in over 2 years and an additional 11% have never been reviewed. Buses receive far less scrutiny than the airlines despite 7,518 crashes in the last 4 years resulting in 171 fatalities and 9,414 injuries, while US airlines have had no fatal crashes.

Buses are but one example among many of where a regulatory agency doesn’t have the funding necessary to effectively do its job of keeping the public safe. Such agencies, as well as the VA and SSA, are classic examples of the “shrink [government] down to the size where we can drown it in the bath tub” radical right wing, libertarian strategy.

All too often the underfunding of government agencies is intentional – aimed at undermining both the effectiveness of the agencies and the public’s perception of government.

FULL POST: Government agencies perform many necessary and important functions. However, inadequate funding results in ineffective agencies. But the fault doesn’t lie with the government agencies; it lies with those who make the funding decisions.

A classic strategy of the small government ideologues is to cause government agencies to be ineffective by underfunding them and then to point to their failures and say, “See government doesn’t work.” This strategy has produced the current crisis at the Veterans Administration (VA). Responsible estimates are that the VA’s budget will need to double to effectively serve the growing number of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. (See my post of 6/5/14 for more details on the VA crisis. https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2014/06/05/find-a-crisis-demand-privatization/.)

A similar crisis is brewing at the Social Security Administration (SSA). As millions of baby boomers are retiring and requesting help from the SSA to make decisions about enrolling in Social Security, budget cuts are forcing reductions in access to SSA services. Congress has cut 14 of the last 16 budget requests from the SSA, despite the fact that its budget comes out of the Social Security Trust Fund and, therefore, has no impact on the federal budget or deficit.

Since 2010, these budget cuts have forced the SSA to close 64 field offices, 533 temporary mobile offices that serve remote areas, and reduce hours at the 1,245 field offices that remain open. [1] And its full-time workforce has been cut by about 4,000 (14%) to 25,420. [2]

Meanwhile, enrollment in Social Security retirement benefits has increased 27% over the last 6 years from 2.6 million to 3.3 million. As a result of this growing demand and declining capacity, seniors seeking information and help are experiencing increasingly long waits. In 2013, 43 million Americans visited SSA offices and 43% had to wait more than 3 weeks for an appointment, up from 10% the previous year.

Similarly, regulatory agencies that oversee public safety often suffer from insufficient funding to effectively perform their jobs. Here, the efforts of the small government, “free market,” right wing libertarians are aligned with those of the regulated corporations who push for weak regulations and enforcement.

A classic example is the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which oversees the 525,000 bus and truck operators in the US. Inadequate funding cripples enforcement. While the number of buses and miles traveled have increased significantly since 2006, the agency’s under $600 million budget and 350 investigators have remained essentially unchanged. More than 200 operators with serious violations identified by local police and other authorities have not received a full federal safety review in the last 2 years, if ever. And 546 interstate carriers are operating with violations above acceptable levels but 29% of them haven’t had a federal safety review in over 2 years and an additional 11% have never been reviewed. Buses receive far less scrutiny than the airlines despite 7,518 crashes in the last 4 years resulting in 171 fatalities and 9,414 injuries, while US airlines have had no fatal crashes. [3]

Buses are but one example among many of where a regulatory agency doesn’t have the funding necessary to effectively do its job of keeping the public safe. Others that have been in the news recently include distribution of tainted dialysis fluid, selling of contaminated drugs by a compounding pharmacy, and the chemical explosion in Texas that killed 14 and injured over 200. The responsible public safety agencies, as well as the VA and SSA, are classic examples of the “shrink [government] down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub” radical right wing, libertarian strategy. [4]

Government is the solution to many of the challenges that face us – from providing a base level of economic security in retirement to promoting safety in our everyday lives. All too often the underfunding of government agencies is intentional – aimed at undermining both the effectiveness of the agencies and the public’s perception of government.

[1] Ohlemacher, S., 6/19/14, “Social Security closes offices as demand is on upswing,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[2] Pear, R., 6/17/14, “Social Security agency cuts services as demand grows, Senate report says,” The New York Times

[3] Johnston, K., & Wallack, T., 6/9/14, “Bus lapses mount, but scrutiny lags,” The Boston Globe

[4] Quote is from Grover Norquist in 2004. He is the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist)