Years ago in my career, I was working for a family-owned newspaper group in New Mexico when there was an economic downturn.
The company had recently acquired business partners (BlackRock) in order to finance a split in the ownership that had been hampering the company.
In order to get the company back on its feet and weather the storm, the company instituted pretty severe belt-tightening measures, which included not only budget cuts that went across the board, but a series of rolling furloughs that were designed to keep people employed but slow the cash hemorrhaging out of the bank, regardless of whether the individual newspapers were on solid financial footing.
Other measures included selling off portions of the company that were performing poorly and consolidating operations, such as printing and accounting.
Yes, the employees were upset about it, because of course the employees had to take the brunt of the measures (however, everyone at every level suffered), but everyone believed it was necessary to keep the business afloat. It’s that old business maxim — if your expenses outpace your income, you’re done.
I’ve been in many other types of work in my life, and all of them, in tight times, followed the same rules. Cut what you can until better times come along. So how come that kind of response to low income doesn’t happen in realm of government?
There have been numerous people lamenting the fact that many government employees have been shown the door. Other employees have been asked to detail their accomplishments for a week and have begun clutching pearls at the audacity of the administration.
Still others are complaining that the government is requiring employees to actually report to their respective offices. Then, there are those complaining that the money that was intended for certain groups has been denied because the administration is cutting back on non-essential payments and contracts.
Lawsuits have been filed, news reports have been filed, and countless social media posts have gone out about the heartlessness displayed in reining in government spending.
When did the government get a pass on austerity measures? How is it that government employees get paid whether they work or not? On our furloughs, we did not get paid, but during government shutdowns, the money still flows.
How is it that budgets for businesses face the axe of cost-cutting, but the government, operating without a budget, not only continues to spend money, but continually looks for more ways to spend money without concern, like the proverbial drunken sailor?
Then when you factor in the way the government gets its funds — from the country’s population under force, and with the authority to appropriate more — there seems to be a disdain for proper business practices and a belief that government agencies are above such mundane requirements. Just look at the amount of debt the country has, something with no end in sight.
It would behoove the government to adopt good business practices — balancing budgets, including matching income and expenses while remembering that the U.S. isn’t a for-profit organization.
Tony Farkas is editor of the Trinity County News-Standard and the San Jacinto News-Times. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
