Note: This article was published in the Beacon Hill Paper, August 28, 1996.

Over the last few weeks we have watched as three political parties have tried to persuade Americans that each will be best managing the federal budget. Americans believe, correctly, that taxes are too high and that much federal spending is unwise or wasteful. Every political party claims to want to solve the problem, but none do. How have we gotten ourselves in this mess?

Part of the answer to that question can be seen in a seemingly small issue here in Boston. The politics around the issue go a long way towards explaining why governments spend too much, tax too much and seem to achieve far less for their efforts than they should.

Several weeks ago, the City Council was asked to consider a measure that would increase pensions for city workers who were veterans. “We owe everything to our veterans,” said one Councilor, “for without them we might not even have our country.”

Veterans and groups representing veterans embarked on a telephone lobbying campaign. One Councilor received 40 phone calls in one day, making this the most he has ever received on any issue. Councilors jumped on board. The measure was heard by the Councilor’s Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and reported out favorably.

One dissenting voice was Sam Tyler, executive director of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau. The Bureau is an independent body, funded principally by donations from Boston-area business, that acts as the fiscal watchdog of the city. Tyler questioned the need for the measure and the potential cost.

Indeed, the true cost of the measure is unclear. Estimate varied between 50 and 3,500 city retirees who could take advantage of it, and each would receive an increase of anywhere between $1,000 and $4,500 a year. One source estimated the legislation would cost $15.75 million; another claimed it would only cost $50,000.

A few observations about the legislation should be made. First, this is a classic example of spending legislation that is pushed by a small, well-motivated group that benefits considerably if the legislation passes. The opposition to this measure is diffuse and not well-organized.

Politicians know this. Any politician voting for the measure earns the gratitude of veterans; anyone opposing it earns their wrath. No one is particularly vocal on the other side of the issue.

The second observation is that increasing the pensions does little to serve public policy. This idea of increasing benefits was actually, believe it or not, dreamt up as a means of boosting the pension of departing state House Speaker Charles Flaherty. Granted, veterans deserve our respect and gratitude. But what public purpose is being served by giving city workers who happened to be veterans even larger pensions when they already receive preferential treatment in hiring, extra pensions benefits, and special property tax abatements? What public need was left unmet before the pension increases were proposed?

Finally, even if you could argue your way through the first two points, this legislation costs money. Boston is on a budget, a tight budget. There are many worthy things on which we might want to spend money but we don’t. Boston has a $1.5 billion annual budget. Revenues for that come from property taxes, state aid, fees, licenses and fines. Because of Proposition 2 ½, property taxes can’t be increased to pay for the veterans’ pensions. The other sources of revenue are fixed or out of the city’s control.

The only way to pay for this benefit is to cut something else. What will that be? Police? Kindergarten classes? Indeed, if we had the money, are there not other things (such as pre-kindergarten classes) that we should fund first?

On August 14th, the veterans pensions’ measure was tabled for a week, in part because of the questions raised by the Municipal Research Bureau and reported in the press. On August 21st, the measure passed. In fact the day of the vote, a hearing was held where representatives of the Retirement Board, the Boston Finance Commission, and City Council staff could not provide a ballpark estimate on what the cost would be to the City. It did not matter. I was the only dissenting vote.