It is the nature of government to expand rather than contract. And the system itself encourages expansion. Let me illustrate.
Departments of South Carolina's State government are using paid lobbyists to lobby legislators for more money for their departments. Think about this. Taxpayer dollars are paying for lobbyists to lobby legislators to spend even more taxpayer dollars. This borders on masochism and if it is happening in South Carolina, you can assume it is also happening in your State.
A few years ago, South Carolina, following the lead of 32 other states, eliminated sales taxes on food, primarily to help the elderly as well as those below the poverty line. However, the Governor rescinded this sales tax removal, claiming that the tax money was needed because State departments were "cash-strapped".
But these "cash-strapped" departments are able to employ expensive lobbyists. The Ports Authority and the Public Service Authority have six lobbyists each pressuring legislators for more money for their functions. And, last year, lobbyists for the Department of Transportation pressured legislators for a gas tax increase.
Luckily, not all legislators lack integrity, and there is a pending bill, currently in a House committee, that would prohibit public funds from being used to pay for contract or full-time lobbyists.
But even if this bill becomes law, it only touches the tip of the iceberg. Most state agencies also have public information officers whose function is to provide information, primarily to legislators. Their goal is to favorably influence votes that will increase spending for their departments. So, in effect, these officers are lobbying legislators and they too are funded by taxpayers.
Let's take this one step further. Follow closely, because, to quote Alice in Wonderland, it gets "curiouser and curiouser."
The State Personnel Department, euphemistically called Human Resources, determines salary levels for all positions. To decide a department head's salary range, personnel uses a formula that considers a number of factors. One of the most prominent is size of annual budget. A department head with a two million-dollar budget is assumed to have more responsibility than a director managing a one million-dollar budget. Therefore, the two million-dollar department head is awarded a higher rate of pay.
Because government agencies are labor intensive, an effective way to significantly increase a departmental budget is by adding more employees. However, a 100-employee department consisting mostly of clerical level positions would generate a lower director's salary than a similar sized agency that had more supervisory and managerial positions. So, by hiring more employees and promoting employees into higher paying jobs, a department head could enhance his rate of pay.
On the other hand, cutting the number of employees and lowering expenses will reduce a department's annual budget. But a director who takes this approach should not expect an increase in his pay range. In all likelihood, his salary level will be adjusted downward by the Personnel Department.
So, by creating a sub rosa motive for directors to seek more funding for their departments, Personnel Departments indirectly encourage expansion of the size of government. And directors soon learn that inefficiency can be more rewarding than efficiency. The cost of government increases and the beleaguered taxpayer foots the bill.
March 26, 2002
