I'm not really a fan of the media. Any of it, although I certainly consume a lot. Even "non biased" (or biased the way I want them to be) news outlets can be ridiculous sometimes. Local news is worse, with the craziest things being touted as stories. Yesterday I read a story that was both interesting and wrong. I mean, it took good facts, but went a completely different direction with them than I would have. The story was about what cities and states are doing to cut costs. They mentioned (in reverse order) cutting off public services like trash pickup and street lights, ending public transportation, and shortening school years.
One city mentioned in this story had cut trash service to public parks. At first, I thought this was a drastic measure that would have little financial impact. I still don't think it will make that much of a difference if the trashman hits one more stop. But if trashcans were removed from parks (as opposed to being left in parks to indefinately fill up), then patrons would find somewhere else to put their trash, or take it home with them. Most of us do not litter - we've been brainwashed enough that the idea is laughable.
Another city turned off 1/3 of its streetlights. Citizens were concerned about a rise in crime, even though there is little statistical evidence of a correlation. Now, this cost cutting measure seems reasonable enough to me on the outset, but it appears the city was not methodical in turning the lights off. Some areas were left dark. Now, if someone turned off every third light on a given street, I don't think it would have that much of an impact (especially on streets where the lights are on both sides). But it appears (and it doesn't seem too far fetched) that city council, after approving the measure, probably said, "Not in my neighborhood!" and then turned off the lights based on their own passions, rather than reasonable application.
The City of Atlanta shut off all its public transportation. But, for the sake of my point of view, I will call it mass transportation. The article profiled a man with no car and the difficulties he now faces. Now, I think if I lived in a big city, I would take advantage of the mass transit. (I wish I could take more advantage of it now, but even though we have bus service to my work, it is very limited). And if I felt that everything I needed was within this transit system, I would probably not hold on to a car. Of all the "boo hoo" stories in this article, this is the one I most side with the citizens on. It's kind of drastic to ask someone to go out and buy a $10,000 car when they had been spending less than $10 a day on transit.
On the other hand, citizens need to understand how much this service cost. That, and it is a service that many (perhaps the majority of people in today's car driven society) don't use. The article said the cost was $8 million a year - I wonder if that included any unfunded pensions. That seems to be a big problem with most government budgets. I think the city could have looked at many alternatives. They could have increased fares to the point that the project was paying for itself. Riders would either buy cars if there were savings to be had or pay the extra, if the savings were in the public transportation. The city could have also looked into being bought out by a private company. I know people cry out in terror at the idea of a corporate run transit system. But you have to admit, a company would probably run the system better. It would be on time more often. The workers would be friendlier. The workers would be paid less. And savings would be passed on to the consumer. The city's proposed solution - an increased sales tax - places an undue burden on the half of the city that does not use the public transportation. A service like this should be able to pay for itself or it is not necessary. Patrons should be willing to pay to use it, or it is not necessary. But cutting it off all of the sudden one day seems a little dramatic.
Finally, in Hawaii, the state had cut an extra 17 days from the school year by having Friday furloughs. Now, I would think that the point of expressing this in an article would be to discuss why education is such a big expense and what can be done to cut costs. It may have discussed whether or not shortening the school year would adversely impact the education of children - children who already lag behind other devleoped countries. It may have discussed the theory of vouchers, or if the general public should be expected to shoulder the education of our children, and so on. Instead it focused on how hard it was for parents to find childcare on the extra day off.
Okay, so finding childcare can be an issue. But how is finding childcare for 17 extra Fridays different than finding childcare for the summer? And what about all the parents and families that already have childcare covered? I speak of families with a stay at home parent, a grandparent or aunt or uncle who can watch the kids, where at least one parent is a teacher, and so on. Certainly creative parents can find a way to take care of their kids for 17 Fridays - perhaps the schools can help parents create pools of 5 or so kids, whose parents rotate watching the kids on the day off. (But that's part of the problem these days - people don't know their neighbors, and both parents usually work either because they want to or they have to - and Hawaii is one of the poorest states in the nation, so imagine homes with two working parents are even more necessary).
But the big problem with making childcare the point of the article is that education was never meant to be government-paid childcare. If it was, then why does it only start when kids are five years old? And why does it not run 7:30 - 5:30 every day all year round? Education is education. Work is work. People have been juggling the two ever since moms went back to work. Our focus should be on getting our children the best education possible, so that when they have kids childcare is hardly a problem at all. We should be concerned about our kids learning, not whether or not their parents had to eat a vacation day to stay home with them.
I was so disappointed with this article. It could have gone in so many different directions, but instead decided to take the same old, "These poor people are losing their favorite public services!" direction, rather than evaluate other possibilities. It could have looked into how the cities who turned lights off allocated the dark areas. It could have questioned what other alternatives Atlanta looked into before shutting down the trains. It could have asked if our kids are getting a proper education?
(I went back to find the article, which I believe appeared on msn.com on Saturday, but it has been replaced - searches do not yield much - although a search on related words brought up plenty of articles, which probably have the same boring theme. This was not the first article I had read on education that took the approach of, "What are the parents going to do for childcare?")
No comments:
Post a Comment