The challenges of cutting a budget

Denise Oppenhagen
Published: October 18, 2008

I don’t know how many of you watched the presidential debate on Wednesday night. I missed the first debate, but have watched the last two presidential and the vice presidential debates to try to learn
more about the campaigns. 

I perked up when McCain mentioned “Joe the Plumber.” Several times, McCain mentioned Joe and how Obama’s proposed policies would impact him. Former President Ronald Reagan used to do this —
find a person he could use as a face for whatever piece of legislation it was that he wanted to have passed or not. If used correctly, it’s a very effective persuasive tool. Unfortunately for John McCain, he
used Joe the Plumber as an example only to find out on Thursday that Joe the Plumber isn’t a plumber after all.

Before I learned the truth about Joe, McCain had me thinking about the impact of policies on the average person. In fact, I spent most of the rest of the debate thinking about the hatchet versus scalpel
method of budget reductions and wondering what would happen if our Board of County Supervisors (BOCS) decided to use either method when talking about the upcoming budget. 

I understand the hatchet idea.  All agencies and programs share equally in the suffering. On one hand, it’s a good idea. It’s a straight reduction so there is no debate and everyone’s feelings are equally
hurt. It’s like when my Mom would settle a fight between my sister and myself. She knew she had done a good job if both of us hated the solution. 

On the other hand, it’s a bad idea. First of all, there are some agencies that are and have been underfunded, some woefully so. To have that agency take the same cut as an agency that’s been
adequately funded is unconscionable.  Take education, for instance. Despite the budget sharing agreement, our schools remain underfunded. I have strong opinions on this topic. as many of you know. 

When we have students who spend their time in schools where the air conditioning doesn’t work properly or the halls are too dark or the technology hasn’t been updated since personal computers were

introduced (that one is an exaggeration but not by all that much), and we can’t improve the infrastructure because there is no funding, that is a program that is underfunded.  And each of you can probably
name a program you feel is underfunded — the police and fire departments are two others that come to my mind.

So if the BOCS decides to use a scalpel instead of a hatchet, how do they decide what to cut and what to save? It’s a matter of deciding priorities. And I think our government’s priorities should be in
saving the budgets of those agencies that directly impact our health and safety. Cuts in the police and fire departments would certainly impact not only Joe the Plumber but Jane the teacher and Jim the
commuter. Cuts in the supervisors’ “slush fund” (a popular budget reduction target)? Not so much. Yes, I understand that most of the supervisors use these funds to support nonprofits in the area, but
these funds could really be reduced without harming someone’s physical being. 

On paper, surgically reducing the county’s budget sounds easy. Make a list of priorities, and then fund in accordance with that list. And the supervisors probably realize that ideally, that’s the way the
budget would be balanced.

But the reality is that the government serves people and the government’s budget affects different people in different ways. And that is why budget discussions get so emotional. People have emotions and
use those emotions when supporting their position. 

And that is why John McCain invoked Joe the Plumber so many times during the debate. And that is why what Joe the Plumber thinks and feels (according to the candidates) is important to me. It brings
the abstract policy discussion to my level.  If only Joe were really a plumber.

Denise Oppenhagen is a resident of Prince William County and can be reached at .