The Need For

Government Restraint

To the Editor:

Last week’s opinion piece “Boneheaded Budgeting” is the usual drivel you feel compelled to slap on the front page of an otherwise good newspaper. However, since I’m experienced in the area of budgeting I feel it is my obligation to contradict a few of your assertions. My first question is if $537,000 is needed every year for these programs to earn $80,000, how is that a 15 percent return on investment? In my book that is a whopping loss. You really lost me on that one.

You claim that the proposed cuts of $537,000 from the Connecticut Historical Commissions budget was a “budget blunder.” Of course after public outcry it was reinstated. Your assertion is that the budget was foolishly cut in the first place. I think that our state and local governments should show great restraint in spending and cut budgets during periods of economic weakness. I would like to say that for myself and many other readers of The Bee we send a lot more money to Hartford than we see in services. For Democrats and Socialists this is not a big problem, after all Karl Marx says, “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” I say that capitalism is what made this country great and every dime that goes to a government agency is often spent more foolishly than by even the most foolish citizen.

What you should be asking is why the Historic Commission chose to eliminate profitable and popular programs. My opinion is that it is all about tactics to defeat a strategy. The governor’s strategy is to reduce spending to avoid a larger tax burden in tough economic times. The tactics chosen by the Historical Commission were intended to cause public outcry. They specifically chose to cut these programs because it would have the greatest public impact. Of course, it creates an opportunity for wealthy newspaper owners to spew venomous rhetoric in an effort to convince us that we need higher taxes. It is like a school that threatens to cancel football because of budget cuts when it is the one sport that generates revenue.

Assume for a second that my assertion is wrong. Assume that the wisest cuts by the Historical Commission are truly in these areas. Why not raise the fee to those who actually use these sites? Only about 30,000 citizens visit these sites annually so maybe a corporate sponsor could be secured as other states have done. Half of the Historical Commission’s nearly $2 million dollar budget goes to payroll. There are 14 positions at an average salary of nearly $68,000 per year. Why not cut staff, which is happening in the private sector.

I believe that it is important to fund historical projects and restoration at the state level. All I ask is that in unsure economic times our leaders and our government exercise the same restraint as its citizens do.

Richard Reilly

35 High Rock Road, Sandy Hook                  March 17, 2003

(Editor’s note: The Bee’s March 14 editorial stated that the four museums to be closed by the proposed budget cuts earned a net profit of $80,000, not total revenues of $80,000. The total revenues were $617,000, reflecting the 15 percent return on investment mentioned in the editorial.)