The late great columnist/author/economist Henry Hazlitt wrote an interesting book titled “The Conquest of Poverty.” In it, he postulated that those who take more in government benefits than they pay in taxes should be disqualified from voting and from holding public office. Why? Because this created a conflict of interest, as those who feed at the trough have every incentive to enlarge it. Ultimately, he said, this would weaken our economy and undermine our prosperity. Fast forward a couple decades, and today, direct government costs are some 48% of our total economy, and regulations add around 14% more. So the REAL cost of government is zeroing in on 2/3 of our economy, and the economy basically sucks.

Relating that to the city of Mauston, when I was on the City Council, I sat in on a personnel committee meeting that included city employees, the labor attorney, union representatives, and 3 city council members. I took note of the fact that I and one other council member were the only ones who did not get a significant part of their family incomes from the taxpayers. The government union rep got her money from the unionized government workers, and the labor attorney got most of his income representing several units of government about the state, so in a real sense, they too got their money from the taxpayers.

When the labor attorney spoke his argument was simply paraphrased: “Other unions about the state seem to be settling for 3.5% increase, and that is what I recommend.” Later, in a council meeting, I pointed out that according to the Bureau of Labor statistics, during the preceding year, all Wisconsin employees averaged an increase of one tenth of 1%. Since this number includes both public and private employees, the private sector got no raise, while government employees did. I suggested that is was foolish to widen the disparity between those who produce the wealth, and those who consume it, and that eventually you will have taxpayers who will not put up with going backwards while government employees are protected from economic realities that were mostly created by bad government policy. Further, the size and cost of government were already reducing our prosperity and job prospects. I can not recall the exact vote, but it was either 6-1 or 5-2 against my proposal, but I do recall that all those whose primary source of income is the taxpayers voted in favor of the raises. The city council now as then, has a mayor and 2 council members who work for school districts, and the wife of the chief of police. As much as I might agree with the pronouncements of Hazlitt, his sensible solution is not in the political cards. But I ask, is it not time for a bit of diversity on the city council? What say you, the voters and potential council members?