Editor’s Note:  I came across this article yesterday and felt that it merited republication here on Hoosier Access.   It is thought provoking and timely as we debate the various pros and cons of the Kernan-Shepard report on local government.  Some may disagree with Mr. Ladwig’s points, and others might be more sympathetic-as I am-to what he is saying.  Individuals on both sides should realize, however, that we should not rush through these reforms or dismiss them out of hand.  They deserve debate and discussion because they have the power to greatly impact Hoosiers in a very real way.

By: Craig Ladwig

Strip away a multi-year, bigwig publicity campaign, complete with unctuous news coverage and a last-minute statewide tour, and the premise of the governor’s move to consolidate local government was just this:  People in Indianapolis are smarter than the rest of us.

The governor now says he is “embarrassed” for those in his party who opposed the plan (successfully, so far). The comment implies that they did not do their homework or that they were too dumb to understand economies of scale.

On the contrary, the senators in opposition clearly had thought through the issue. They may have read a comprehensive survey of the academic literature showing mixed results for consolidation of local governments. Or a forensic accounting that debunked not only the tax cuts but the savings promised by a typical consolidation campaign.

In any case, isn’t a smaller, more accountable government what Hoosiers want, not necessarily a more centralized one, however efficient?

(Read More Below the Fold)

Jean Leising put the issue in perspective for her fellow senators: It is as if a U.S. president were telling the states to adopt a unicameral legislature.

“I bet you would be furious,” she was quoted as saying by the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. “Honestly, this is kind of what we are doing to local government, saying ‘you guys don’t do things right, but we’re smart, and we suggest this is how you might start fixing things.’”

History is on the senator’s side. It tells us that “streamlining” government can mean making it larger and more difficult to monitor through democratic processes (Mussolini getting the trains to run on time). Indeed, the word “efficient” merely speaks to how resources are used, not the total amount of resources expended or, most certainly, who gets to expend them.

That was one reason Ball State University’s study claiming $622 million in savings from consolidation could not be translated into per-capita tax cuts, only in more money for state officials to spend.

In Alaska, one of the most backward states in the nation by the standards of Ball State or the Kernan-Shepard report, a self-described hockey mom got elected mayor of a city with a budget little bigger than most Indiana townships.

From there, using nothing more efficient than her small-town common sense, Sarah Palin strung together a series of election victories that turned the power structure upside down.

And she didn’t have to eliminate a single elected public office to do it.

Now, you may be one of those who think it a bad idea to turn the power structure upside down from time to time. If so, consolidation and the governor’s idea of “reform” are your tickets.

Some of us, though, will be trying to find a Hoosier version of Mrs. Palin . . . maybe in the office of a township trustee.

Craig Ladwig is editor of The Indiana Policy Review

Editor’s Note 2:  Sen. Leising is right to bring up the issue of federalism as an analogy to this debate.  If local government needs reformed, that reform, what it looks like and how extensive it is, is best left to those who will be paying for it and living under it.