Responsive Services: Don’t Focus On Tax Rates

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization. 

By Thomas E. Poulin
March 17, 2025

Economic debates in politics often focus on tax rates. Political leaders, community members and the media discuss tax rates as if the number had a mystical power. Tax rates are important, but focusing narrowly on them ignores the purpose of taxes—responsive services to the community.

In 1992, third-party presidential candidate Ross Perot remarked that while no one enjoyed paying taxes, they were more likely to accept them if they saw something of value produced. It is an interesting point to reflect upon. Taxes pay for defense, roads, libraries, schools, fire protection, public utilities and a host of other services. The debate must include a more robust discussion on services. What does the community require and desire? What is it willing to pay for, and what can it afford?

Decades ago, a cartoon showed an individual holding an electric guitar, standing near an amplifier. He stated he did not need government, business, industry or anything else. All he needed was friends, peace, love and a place to plug in his electric guitar. This was a cartoon, but it illustrated wonderfully a fundamental perspective related to public services. Individuals and communities may want specific services, but they do not consider what is necessary for their provision.

This is a conundrum for both elected and appointed public sector leaders. Agency heads are expected to provide the highest quality of services possible to their communities, but they are limited by the resources provided. This is a critical consideration. Public agencies face unlimited and dynamic challenges with limited resources. They find themselves challenged to prioritize how limited funding is spent in an environment where what is required and desired by some is held of low or no value by others. This challenge is exacerbated by the abysmal rates of public participation in policy debates. No matter how public sector leaders prioritize spending, they will face criticism.

It might be helpful to view many public services as a portable fire extinguisher. There is a cost associated with purchasing and mounting it. There is an effort associated with maintaining it. It has no secondary purpose. It must be replaced every few years, having reached the end of its dependable service life. It is viewed as a waste of money and time, having never been used. However, if there had been a fire, it would have been of inestimable value. This is not an uncommon perspective on many public services. If an individual requires or desires it, it is money well spent. If an individual has no use for the service, it is a waste of money.

Individuals and communities require or desire some services, but often lack sufficient information to make an informed decision concerning them. At the national level, the Constitution’s Elastic Clause has been viewed as providing public officials with authority to achieve their mission, even if this is not specifically noted in enabling legislation. Illustrative of this, the Constitution requires the national government to provide a postal service but says nothing about staffing, facilities, procedures or budgeting. This is left to those tasked with providing the services.

This requires public sector leaders to provide the best services possible with the resources available. By extension, this means that not all services can be provided at a level of quality and quantity that satisfies all. To optimize the appropriate allocation of available funding the goal must be to provide normal services with some level of surge capacity for unexpected circumstances. However, it is impossible to respond effectively and efficiently to all crises. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “You provide the services with the agencies you have, not the ones you wish to have.”

Transparency and community oversight are important tenets of public service. Ideally, this involves an informed, engaged populace. However, the reality is many in the the community exist in a bubble making value-based decisions with limited, often inaccurate, information. Even if public sector leaders allocate funding in the most effective, efficient manner possible, there will be those who charge them with failed leadership or incompetent management.

This is an issue within agencies as well. Some in the rank and file will accuse their agency heads of incompetence or corruption if their agency is not fully funded to the level expected by the employees. They might do the same if the agency is stressed to the point of failure by a crisis, arguing the agency leadership should have foreseen this, then raised and used the funding to fully prepare for what might be a once-in-a-lifetime event. These individuals lack an understanding of public budgeting.

Public sector leaders must be proactive in this area. They must explain openly and fully the services they can provide based on the funding available. Ultimately, this will be determined by the community. They are the ones to decide what service levels they want, or at least what service levels they are willing to pay for. After that, leaders must do their best, accepting they will never satisfy everyone.

---

Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, SHRM-CP, IPMA-CP, is a training and development consultant and part-time public administration faculty at Columbia Southern University. He served in local government and non-profits for more than 30 years and has taught public administration and related topics for nearly 20. He may be reached at [email protected]. 

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...