Why We Take It Out On the Schools

The search is on in Cincinnati to explain why eight of the ten local area school levies failed last week. Some are claiming the schools are spending unwisely, others say they have enough money already. But I would argue that there is another factor at work – one that has its roots in consumer behavior.

A recent book entitled Trading Up explains seemingly contradictory spending patterns that have given rise to the success of retailers as varied as Wal-Mart and Williams-Sonoma. At first glance, logic would assume that one caters to lower-income people, while the other to the better off. But that’s not necessarily the case.

The authors point out that one complements the other. People of all demographics have traded down in some areas, choosing to buy low-cost staples at discount stores, in order to reward themselves with selected luxury items from higher-end retailers.

It’s really quite simple. They save money where they can so they can spend more where they want.

That, I believe, is what is going on with the school levy defeats. Consumers, a.k.a. taxpayers, are choosing to save money on taxes so they can spend their money elsewhere. Rarely do they get a chance to vote directly on taxes, but when they do, they are increasingly saying no. Unfortunately, it’s our schools that take the hit, since they’re the ones who have to go directly to the taxpayer.

It’s not that voters are opposed to schools, but they are opposed to taxes. Which is why I argue so often that every government must remember they do not operate in a vacuum. Any dollar they spend is a dollar taken from somewhere else.

And it’s not just taken from one department and given to another. It crosses jurisdictional lines, both public and private. That’s because government is competing with everyone else for the public’s money.

So when the state, county, city or township spends a dollar on roads or police or parks, that is a dollar not available to be spent on schools or libraries or cars or clothes or travel or whatever else the taxpayer might have chosen to spend it on. And once the consumer feels their budget line-item marked “taxes” has reached its limit, they’ll simply shut off the spigot when given the chance – no matter what the money would go for.

That’s why I believe if government officials at every level – local, county, state and federal – truly cared about education, they would be ever so judicious in spending the public’s tax dollars.

It may not be right, but the voter will look at wasteful spending – say an expensive new state government office building – and lash out by saying no to the schools. Politicians can argue that’s irrational, but then again, Philadelphia fans once booed Santa Claus at halftime because the Eagles were playing badly. Likewise, voters take out their frustrations on whatever target is available.

They have plenty of reasons to feel frustrated. We have the federal government running record deficits, the state of Ohio raised the sales tax by 20 percent last year and local governments are spending revenue raised through creative financing schemes. The taxpayer is not amused. So they trade down the only chance they get – when the schools ask for money. And the real spenders continue happily on their way, oblivious to the carnage they leave in their wake.