Budget season is here. Not only have surveys gone out soliciting San Antonians’ priorities, but it came up in a March city council session as it pertains to hiring more police.
There, District 10 Councilman Marc Whyte stated that every budget should be “starting with public safety.” That dovetails with his zero-based budgeting idea as a baseline. On the other end, a cap on the budget should be dictated by a reduction in the property tax rate.
Unfortunately, leadership appears poised to go the other direction.
Interestingly, the intent there is only partly to plug the fiscal hole, which is estimated to be well over $100 million. For those purposes, the City started by hiring a local law firm to pursue residents for decades-old citations, many of questionable authenticity.
The other part of the tax hike is to enable the City to borrow more at the next bond election. That by itself raises eyebrows. Consider that we’re 27% more in the red per resident than the next most indebted big Texas city (Austin), and it’s downright alarming.
Moreover, our municipal debt-to-GDP (per capita) is 1-to-4. Austin’s is less than 1-to-7. For what it’s worth, we’re well over twice the national average.
When it comes to GDP, we don’t even crack the top 100 wealthiest U.S. cities. Government makes up 16% of it, more than double that of Austin, while our budget as a share of GDP is almost twice that of Dallas.
It’s no coincidence that these cities are much more prosperous than we are, so heavy is the municipal albatross around the “warmth” of our collective neck. Contrary to recognizing this as a problem, city leaders are lurching the other way.
They cite the pullback in federal spending as a reason not to tighten our own purse-strings. A prime example is grants to non-profit organizations.
The City contributes $22 million of their respective revenues. That amounts to just a couple percentage points per organization from the San Antonio taxpayer. Eliminating that is a logical place to start addressing the profligate spending at City Hall.
Another way to turn things around would start intangibly.
The City likes to bill itself as an “Employer of Choice.” That, and striving to offer “market competitive wages” and “other robust benefits,” should be stricken from the City’s budget language, and policy.
Government imposes a burden on small businesses and employers in general with such direct competition for labor. If a firm manages to clear that artificial barrier, there are two likely outcomes.
Either it has less to invest and grow. Or, it passes the increased cost on to the customer. Or both. Policymakers fail to account for such unseen consequences.
By comparison, if our municipal employee-per-GDP were similar to that of Houston, we’d have less than half our current payroll. Does our leadership lack faith in our City employees’ ability to support as much wealth creation as their counterparts in Houston?
If they would simply exercise some fiscal discipline, it could not only save taxpayers money, but it would also improve the conditions for future growth. That’s one of government’s few defined roles (in addition to public safety).
Instead, we have members of council who, flush with taxpayer plunder, want to feed residents directly, chauffeur them around town, and let us know how important they are.
As a father of four, I understand the urge to take care of others. I miss the days when my daughters were dependent on me. But I know I can’t treat them like children forever.
The City of San Antonio should shed its own paternalistic tendency.
—
Christopher E. Baecker is Vice President of the Bexar County Taxpayers Association, and a board member of InfuseSA. He teaches high school AP government and financial literacy, and college economics.