There are, I think, two principal ways that a government spending proposal in a small town succeeds. (There are more than two ways, but here I’m simply considering principal ways.)
The first way is how all spending proposals should be considered — on the merits. Is it necessary to tax for a public purpose, and even if so, what’s the least burdensome amount that taxpayers should be asked to bear? The presumption should rest against taxation and public spending, in favor of a wage earner’s retention of his or her earned income.
What begins as the income of a man or woman, only later becomes money for government to take, and use for a supposedly public purpose.
(Genuine public safety needs, and emergency assistance to vulnerable people, come to mind as legitimate expenditures.)
There’s a second way, however, that creeps into the thinking of politicians, bureaucrats, and boosters (boosters supposedly of the community, but mostly of themselves). It’s the idea that people have to get on board, be part of the team, go along, to cheer for bigger and better government projects. There are deadly narcotics less intoxicating than need to fall in line that a few exploit to turn people into lemmings.
It’s a nearly irresistible siren call reminiscent of a childhood exhortation: “Hey kids, lets put on a show…”
It’s often a tax-from-others to build-for-our-own-pride undertaking. Those who raise objections are deemed misfits, malcontents, complainers, lunatics, anarchists, misanthropes, community-haters, etc. The pressure that a small clique — only a few hundred of a town of many thousands — will exert is too much for many people. They find themselves unsettled, and worried that if they don’t agree with the latest project proposal, they’ll be picked on, etc.
Sometimes, they’re right — that is what happens. It’s how small officials abuse their authority by exercising petty tyrannies over others. These can be big problems in a small town.
Mostly, however, those who raise objections are carefully and deliberately excluded from task forces and appointed public boards where they might demonstrate how ill-considered the latest Next Big Project really is. Instead, a weak and manipulative municipal manager, for example, will rely on the same collection of People Who Can be Depended Upon to Agree with Any Project Proposed.
That’s a loss for a community, but no great impediment for honest, determined, and diligent critics. Those placed on committees simply as yes men are dull and narrow. A dozen of them are less effective than one sensible, common person.
I’m curious, though, which line of advance one is most likely to see in my town in the months ahead. One could guess, but the answer’s sure to be just around the corner….