Temporary Programs Often Become Permanent.
After unprecedented financial aid, the Erie School District seeks to increase taxes to maintain programs launched during the COVID emergency.
ESD budget 250mm and comes with a 4.5% tax hike yearly for several years, if the article I read is accurate. I think that’s roughly $80 dollars for every 100k worth of property in the first year alone. Part of the justification is the desire to continue programs funded by emergency COVID distributions. I'm sure these programs are essential and one of the best investments a nation can make is one into its future generations. That said, his is an excellent example of a fundamental truth about how government operates: in almost all case, when the government passes legislation that funds a new program short-term or otherwise, that new program is virtually guaranteed to become a permanent one that will require increased funding going forward.
This dynamic is especially true during emergencies. I've never seen an emergency program truly end when an emergency passes; it just becomes a new permanent part of the status quo. Unfortunately, when a program is crafted during an emergency, its reasonable to assume it was quickly conceived and rushed out the door, with little thought given to creating safeguards against abuse or designing it in the most efficient, cost-sensitive manner and effective way possible. Our recent COVID experience is filled with examples that prove those things to be true.
Furthermore, a natural and obvious byproduct of a temporary program becoming permanent is new and increased taxation going forward, although the emergency has long since ended. Of course, there is another option to meet the new funding demands, which is increased borrowing. Thus far, that is how our country has paid for all of the COVID-related spendings. However, that approach is temporary, kicking increased taxation down to a future generation.
This dynamic is a big reason why the size of government is so incredibly massive and will continue to grow, year after year. A great example of this is a program we all know and will use at some point in our life. It's also one of the federal government's most significant expenses. That is, Social Security, a program initially meant to be a short-term policy response to help improve the labor market during a severe depression by making room for younger workers and providing financial security when such a thing was scarce at best. To be very clear, this is not a commentary on whether it's a good or bad program that should continue or not (it should). It's a crucial support program that makes a lot of sense from a public policy perspective and ensures dignity for those later in life when working is not a realistic option. Not to mention, it's rightfully the recipient's money, having spent a lifetime paying into it. I only chose to use it as an example as it is the largest and most well-known example of a short-term policy response becoming a permanent fixture of government.
At the end of the day, once you give voters something, especially something financial, it becomes virtually impossible to take away in a democracy like ours. Why would anyone vote for someone trying to take away an entitlement or funding for something that benefits the voter? It's an understandable and natural behavior, so the government should always be slow and deliberative in funding new things, even in an emergency. Maybe most importantly, in an emergency, as rushing funding out for quickly drafted legislation is ripe for abuse. There are countless stories of COVID-related funding being abused, with endless instances of "emergency" money ending up in the wrong hands.
As they say in government, "never let a good crisis go to waste."