|
|
|
We’re probably all pretty sick of the political conflict in our nation’s capital. Perhaps like me, most folks wish they’d just “get it,” and make common sense decisions on cutting cost, limiting taxes, and managing programs. Then we could get on with our lives and rebuilding the economy.
Unfortunately, nothing is ever simple, and the arguments are polarized around two fundamentally opposed ideas about government. Neither are new; they go back to the Hamilton — Jefferson conflict over government in the late 1700s. They were at least as polarizing then, and generated at least as much hostility.
That early, intense debate was over the role of central government and taxation — sound familiar? The question is, are we going to increase the role of government and the cost of providing it, or are we going to force the federal government to live on available revenue and let the chips fall where they may? Oversimplification aside, that brings us to Morton — what does the D.C. debate have to do with municipal government?
The short answer is probably that we have similar issues, but on a smaller scale. The difference is that Morton government — as far back as I am able to identify — has focused on balancing needs and revenue, putting political positions aside. I noted in an earlier column that the current board cut $1.8 million a couple of years ago to bring outgo into alignment with income, a purely pragmatic action.
One advantage for us has been the absence of party politics. Another is that no Village official I’ve ever encountered has sought personal gain out of an assignment or acted other than in the perceived best interests of the Village, based on the facts and information at hand. Whether trustees and commissioners are right or wrong in some cases may be arguable, but it is not because of personal politics or veniality.
Despite the fact that trustees and appointed officials represent a range of political affiliations and views, there is no significant debate about the practical issues that face municipal government. We’ll all continue making sure we live within our means and focus on solutions.
At the same time, the federal situation remains, and that will likely have some impact on Morton via actions that affect the state, and via state services and revenue, the Village of Morton. The good news is that we are prepared, and the effects may not have further significant consequences.
We’re probably all pretty sick of the political conflict in our nation’s capital. Perhaps like me, most folks wish they’d just “get it,” and make common sense decisions on cutting cost, limiting taxes, and managing programs. Then we could get on with our lives and rebuilding the economy.
Unfortunately, nothing is ever simple, and the arguments are polarized around two fundamentally opposed ideas about government. Neither are new; they go back to the Hamilton — Jefferson conflict over government in the late 1700s. They were at least as polarizing then, and generated at least as much hostility.
That early, intense debate was over the role of central government and taxation — sound familiar? The question is, are we going to increase the role of government and the cost of providing it, or are we going to force the federal government to live on available revenue and let the chips fall where they may? Oversimplification aside, that brings us to Morton — what does the D.C. debate have to do with municipal government?
The short answer is probably that we have similar issues, but on a smaller scale. The difference is that Morton government — as far back as I am able to identify — has focused on balancing needs and revenue, putting political positions aside. I noted in an earlier column that the current board cut $1.8 million a couple of years ago to bring outgo into alignment with income, a purely pragmatic action.
One advantage for us has been the absence of party politics. Another is that no Village official I’ve ever encountered has sought personal gain out of an assignment or acted other than in the perceived best interests of the Village, based on the facts and information at hand. Whether trustees and commissioners are right or wrong in some cases may be arguable, but it is not because of personal politics or veniality.
Despite the fact that trustees and appointed officials represent a range of political affiliations and views, there is no significant debate about the practical issues that face municipal government. We’ll all continue making sure we live within our means and focus on solutions.
At the same time, the federal situation remains, and that will likely have some impact on Morton via actions that affect the state, and via state services and revenue, the Village of Morton. The good news is that we are prepared, and the effects may not have further significant consequences.
But students of government may want to keep their eyes on Washington, D.C., as the congressional debate is highly consequential. Its outcome will likely influence our lives for years to come, and will define the path of U.S. government for some time to come. For those with a hefty reading appetite, Empire of Liberty; A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815, by Brown University historian Gordon Wood, is instructive reading.
We almost failed more than once in the early days, and the current arguments are nearly as old as the nation. But we made it through then, and we’ll make it through now.
And we’re OK in Morton.
Stephen Newhouse is a Morton Village Board trustee with planning and zoning responsibilities. He agreed to write a column for the Morton Times-News to offer his perspective about village happenings.
