Wednesday, July 11, 2012


There's a small city near my home, or rather on my commute, that has been accused in years past, of setting up speed traps and writing unnecessary tickets, just for the sake of raising money.

It has long been my view that if a city government feels the need to resort to such measures to raise money to support itself, then the size to which it has grown, is too much.

What i mean is that a city's government should be easily supported by its legitimate work load.

Which brings me to an unusual rant.  I don't usually rant on this here blog, but tonight i will.  Just a bit.

The evening news reported that a third Californian city has decided to declare bankruptcy because it finds itself so many million (or may billion - i stopped listening when i started yelling at the t.v.) dollars in debt, that it must declare bankruptcy in order to come out from under these obligations.

Is this absurd to anyone but me?

It is my opinion, unsolicited and bold, that there is no government entity that should ever be in debt for any substantial amount of money.  The single possible exception to this rule is the federal government, who may go into limited debt, only in time of war.  If the citizens governed by a government of any size cannot support it, then said government must shrink.  Period.

It is absolutely ridiculous that a city should get to duck its responsibility and its obligees not collect.  If it were ever acceptable for a government entity to take a loan, then that entity should be the absolutely best credit risk anywhere.  It is shameful, to say the very least, that a government should duck its debt.

Furthermore, those cities, states, or otherwise, who find themselves in obscene debt that they have no hope or prospects for repaying should NOT have the privilege of bankruptcy.  They should be required to shrink, to lay off, to cut its costs, to the point that it has a surplus, and with said surplus, it should be required to pay its debts.  Period.

1 comment:

What do you think about that?