If This is What a Budget Crisis Looks Like, Bring It On! Gas Pump Inspection Edition
When you start looking at how budget crises affect government operations, you enter a real rabbit hole, I tells ya. Yes, everyone agrees, we're spending too much money in the public sector and something's gotta give. But what? Don't you see that every goddman thing the government at all levels does is so essential that, really, when you start to look at it, absolutely nothing can be cut?
In fact, when you look at the 60 percent increase in total federal outlays (in constant 2010 dollars or 104 percent in 2000 dollars) since Bill Clinton left office, the real question becomes: How the hell did we ever get by as a country without all that extra crap that's been around for a decade or less? My memory is fading, but in the surplus year of 2000, didn't we all live in old washing-machine boxes and prepare holiday dinners by cutting pictures of food out of grocery-store circulars? Sure, we were poor (by which I mean unprecedentedly wealthy) but at least we had each other (by which I mean the Internets).
No wonder that the good war-happy people at AEI are bitching and moaning that we oughta crank up defense spending from its puny 4.9 percent of GDP to an Eisenhowerian 10+ percent? More guns, less butter! Then there's John Podesta, former Clinton admin chief of staff and now head of the liberal Center for American Progress, fretting that trimming $255 billion from a 2015 budget coming in at over $4 trillion would "do lasting harm to the health of the American middle class." More butter (or cholesterol-free equivalent) and about the same amount of guns!
But let's take it down a notch, and travel well west of Washington, where the real Americans are living lives of quiet desperation. Feel the pain of Hamilton County, Ohio (which includes Cincinnati) auditor Dusty Rhodes when he's faced with a crushing budget situation that imperils every one of us:
Auditor Dusty Rhodes said his office needs $120,000 - some of that to hire a person to make sure the county's more than 13,000 gas pumps, cash registers, scales, parking meters and taxi meters among other things are accurate. That number doesn't include cash register price scanners, which the office also checks.
"Weighs and measures ensures an honest workplace," Rhodes said. "Without another inspector people's pocketbooks won't be protected."
The county has two inspectors, down from four in 2009. Budget cuts means they weren't filled after one inspector took a job in another county and another was moved to a new job within the auditor's office…
It's the office's goal to inspect every gas pump, cash register, scale, and parking meter every year. This year, for the first time, the county won't have done that, [a spokeswoman] said.
"We find ourselves at 2011 having inspected about 11,000 devices," [she] said.
Without another inspector, next year at most 9,000 devices will be inspected, she added.
As a manager, I've faced my share of flat or falling budgets and I know it's not fun. Two words: tough shit. Think through the example above folks, for even 30 seconds. If this is the sort of "problem" we'll be facing by cutting public-sector expenditures, let's have at it.
Memo to Auditor Rhodes: Inspectors aren't protecting the people's pocketbooks, though you are clearly trying to protect your budget (the article notes that Rhodes "has long complained his office doesn't have enough money or staff"). Try doing the same - or better yet, more - with less. Do all devices actually need to be inspected every single year? There isn't a way to create random samples that will cover the same ground and, to the extent that fear of inspections keep merchants from being sociopathic cheaters, keep gas station operators on their toes? What about contracting out the task? Or how about getting out of the inspection business altogether and letting businesses figure out how to certify to customers that they are not cheating them at the pump or the deli counter? I'm just spitballing here, but come on already. Hardened-in-the-arteries-and-head bureaucracy and defenses of the way it's always been, whether emanating from Washington, D.C. or southwest Ohio, just ain't cutting it any more. Thank god.
If the choice is between spending more money that we don't have on inspecting every gas pump in the country or taking a chance on cutting spending, well, I know what side I'm on: the one willing to risk paying more for a 1/3 pound of salami in exchange for not paying an ever-increasing amount of my cash for public-sector services that have, by and large, massively failed to keep pace with the private sector.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How the hell did we ever get by as a country without all that extra crap that's been around for a decade or less?
That wasn't a "country".
This is a country!
That's not a country; that's a spoon.
I see you've played country/spoony before!
That's no country/spoon; that's a coon!
RACIST!!!
I'm opposed to this if Magnum TA is one the inspectors that Dusty Rhodes has to cut. If its Tully Blanchard then screw him.
Cutting a hundred million from the budget . . . . .
http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/
It's a good visual representatio about how pathetic a $100M cut in the federal budget is, but it also hit on a big peeve of mine.
"Mandatory" spending ain't mandatory, it's automatic. Big difference.
Only military spending can be cut. Everyone who gets any welfare at all, is untouchable. They ALL deserve it, even the able-bodied.
Where has America's common sense went? When did we lose it? Articles like this shouldn't be necessary.
How do we get it back?
Revolution!?!
Where has America's common sense went?
It died along with our knowledge of English grammar.
Hell, Jesse, you don't even have to go back to 2000. This year's tax receipts would generate a budget surplus in the 2004 budget (maybe 2003, I haven't double-checked). Budgets that included the wars, the Bush tax cuts, and an economy coming off the twin hits of the tech crash and 9/11.
2004? Why do you want to go back to a time when the rape gangs roamed the streets freely, before they found gainful employment with the TSA?
"...gainful employment with the TSA,."
Just wait until they unionize.
wow. We could pay the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (leaving aside the idea of whether or not waging those wars was a good idea) with today's tax receipts and still have money left over.
Could someone with math skills explain to me why it is a 60% increase in 2010 dollars, but 104% in 2000 dollars? It seems like the percentage change would be the same in constant dollars whether you are using 2000 or 2010 as your baseline. What am I missing?
Inflation means 2010 dollars are less valuable than 2000 dollars, so you have to spend more 2010 dollars to purchase the same goods in 2000 terms if prices remain static. Basically, the difference in % increase is a change in denominator - using 2000 constant dollars you have a relatively larger denominator in your fraction, and thus a smaller percentage increase. Conversely, using 2010 constant dollars gives you a relatively smaller denominator, therefore a larger percentage increase.
Personally, I think using constant 2000 dollars is more intuitive for most people. To put it another way, a 60% increase in real terms over the decade using 2000 constant dollars equals a roughly 4.8% increase in real spending per year in spending, compounded annually.
Thanks, Sean!
Damn. I love me a good Gillespie screed.
Good sir, may I raise the issue of externalities? And what of roads?
Wasn't Dusty Rhodes a wrestler?
yessiree, the American Dream, Dusty Rhodes.
I thought it was the Andy Griffith character in Face In The Crowd.
Lonesome Rhodes
1954 Serie del Mundo
Wasn't she a Classic Rock D.J. in L.A.?
Clearly it takes $120,000 to hire someone smart enough to make sure a gas pump gives an honest gallon.
Expect more of this shit as the crunch continues. Inspecting weights and measures is actually a legitimate government function. What they will do is put the needed and legitimate functions in peril to ensure the graft continues. Basically, the tactic will be, 'pay for our pork and graft or you can forget about having police service or any other essential government function because those will be the first things that get cut'.
Only some of that is for the inspector salary, presumably the rest is for equipment.
You can't pay minimum wage to an inspector without worrying about bribery issues, either.
Yes you can. You just offer rewards to anyone who rats out an employer who is cheating. That would make it pretty hard to cheat unless you don't have any employees.
And you only have to buy the equipment once. I would imagine they already have it. So that is not going to be a yearly expense.
do you know how much a 1 lb. lead weight and a gallon jug cost?
Like, eleventy billion dollars, I bet!
Well, you can only use each weight once, to ensure the integrity of the inspection, because it loses mass when you handle it!
Unfortunately, you can never pay enough to avoid bribery issues. Didn't communism teach us that need and want are infinite while supply is limited?
Hire anally honest people, and the salary is what it is.
Since this is replacing another employee presumably that guy's govt' vehicle and measuring tools are sitting at the office he used to work out of. So my guess is this $120k is all salary/bens which is too much. There are people who would do the job for half that and not take bribes. I mean it may be less dues for the public employee union, but....oh. Nevermind.
I have no doubt that there are a couple of unemployed people in Ohio (isn't their unemployment over 10%?) who'd be willing to do this job, and do it honestly, for a lot less than the salary the state is budgeting for.
However, I'm willing to bet that some of that $120k is also travel expenses. If they have 2-4 people checking weights and measures across the whole state, they've got people staying overnight away from home and collecting lodging and per diem.
This is for one county, not the entire state.
Hire someone give them some tools and a vehicle. Tell them to check about 4000 things in a year all over a county. 120K would not go far.
If only there was some type of gauge in your car that would tell you how much gas you had in your tank, someone could easily tell by himself if he was getting ripped off at the pump. Why hasn't anyone thought of this yet?
Does your gas gauge give your a precise digital readout of exactly how much gas is in your tank with in one percent or does it just have a linear gauge that tells you that you are somewhere below a quarter of tank? Mine and every car I have ever seen is the latter.
If you are going to rip people off, you do it in small amounts say one percent of every gallon where no one will notice. Try again.
Inspecting weights and measures is actually a legitimate government function.
What i have never understood is why the digital read out on my odometer can tell me i have 203 miles left until empty but my actual gas gauge has 4 lines an "E" a "F" and a cartoon of R2D2. WTF?!?!
Anyway fraud is a pretty harshly punished crime. There is already a very good incentive by sellers to keep their measurements accurate. The idea that this is a legitimate function of government is absurd.
Unless there's evidence that the meter has been tampered with, they don't get charged with criminal fraud even if the tests indicate they're shorting people. They just shut down until the meter is replaced and forced to pay some exorbitant administrative fine.
Pedesta was also asking the president to become a dictator:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/11.....-congress/
Speaking of that, the number of Clinton appointees who seem like crazed socialists or fans of unlimited government just goes to show how much the 1994 elections saved us from.
What a polite way of calling for the burning of the Reichstag.
The odd thing is that (at least in NYS where I worked at one), gas stations have to pay Weights and Measures for the privilege of being inspected.
I like it. Let the stations that want to be certified pay and advertise the fact if they'd like. A big poster of Dusty Rhodes giving the thumbs up at every pump? I'm cool with that.
Yeah, but how can you trust that? You will certainly need a Certificate inspector. And a Certificate Inspector inspector.
"Or how about getting out of the inspection business altogether and letting businesses figure out how to certify to customers that they are not cheating them at the pump or the deli counter?"
Yeah, let's not. We already have enough 'private' agencies providing coverage to companies trying to spin crap into gold.
That said, I don't see why it should cost 120,000 to hire another inspector. Ohio certainly doesn't seem like such an expensive place to live, and I imagine a solid middle class job paying half (or even a third) of that would attract a LOT of good candidates right about now.
The $120K probably includes benefits and expenses (lots of travel involved). I'm guessing the salary is probably in the $70s?
This statement is technically true, but false.
Still, let's say starting salary of 50k (a solid middle class job these days), 12k for health care and a travel budget of 15k.
There, I just saved him 43k a year.
Spend it all and act like the citizens will be raped and killed if you don't get more.
The mantra of municipal budgeting.
Don't forget "burn to death". That's a good one, too.
So just cut the secular stuff.
So just cut the secular stuff.
Sorry for the double-post. Sheesh.
"As people, we all know, don't have a vested interest and economic incentive in protecting their own property - we have to do it for the people."
SPOT ON. That is what bureaucrats do: "Justify" their existence in order to protect their cash cow.
That is an information issue. People can only protect their pocket books if they have the information to do so. If I am running a gas station and I skim off say 1% by not pumping an honest gallon, there is no way my customers will know. No one ever runs their car to it being empty. So you would never notice that it took 14.14 gallons to fill your tank rather than 14. You would just think you were a little lower than you thought. Meanwhile, skimming 1% off the top would add up quick.
"No one ever runs their car to it being empty."
Speak for yourself.
Dad, can I have $20 for gas?
Eh, the same libertarian arguments for abolishing the FDA and letting competing private agencies handle the job applies to this.
Maybe maybe not. I don't think state and local governments ensure that businesses don't defraud their customers is an illegitimate government function.
You may think there are better ways to do it, but that is besides the point. The point is that it is one way to do it. And these bastards are going to hold the legitimate functions hostage to get their graft.
Underwriters Laboratories
Re: John,
The fact that people have an economic incentive to seek this information is a never mind for you... or not?
So? You're obtaining [as a gas station owner] an additional 1% of profit. And?
You *know* what marginal utility means, don't you? What value would a person place on that 1% difference compared to the value of the whole tank of gas? How much MORE does it cost that 1% from the taxes taken from him at bayonet point and given to some pasty-faced bureaucrat just to keep the 1% in his gas tank? I mean, are you nuts???
Yet you want ME to PAY for YOUR FUCKING PIECE OF MIND, by MAINTAINING some fat bureaucrat whose ONLY job is to make sure YOU get that 1% in your tank! With MY MONEY! MY MONEY!!!!!
HOW MUCH, pray tell, does it COST ME to keep THAT measly 1% in your gas tank?
FUCK YOU! I have more things in mind for MY MONEY, MY HARD EARNED CASH, than YOU!
Someone needs to lay off the Four Loko.
No shit. There's a time and a place for mouth-frothing rants from libertarians, but discussions of government guaranteeing fair weights and measures is not one of them.
When it comes to my money, MY FUCKING MONEY, you bet I will be frothing my mouth off.
If I am running a gas station and I skim off say 1% by not pumping an honest gallon, there is no way my customers will know.
They will never know until about 8am in the morning when some guy comes in to fill his 5 gallon gas can to run his lawn mower....and he sees that filling up to the line is more then 5 gallons.
You are not thinking straight today John.
8am in the morning
That's when I fix my hot water heater with money I got from the ATM machine after entering my PIN number.
Plus +1
Assuming they're skimming 1% off, you're talking 0.05 gallons difference, which is about 6 oz, half a soda can. The difference this makes in the height of the gasoline in a 5 gallon gas can is going to be imperceptible.
John|11.17.10 @ 10:58AM|#
"Meanwhile, skimming 1% off the top would add up quick."
First, skimming 1% *won't* add up quick. Secondly, it doesn't take someone with mathematical proof, just enough folks saying 'I never get the same mileage when I fill up at Max's'. Finally, pretty sure that fraud is a criminal issue; you'd skim 1%, chancing an inspection and criminal charges?
There are easier ways to make a buck....
10,000 foot view: the market, as a whole, will only support a certain price paid for total real gallons pumped.
That is to say, it doesn't matter if it is possible to skim; if it is, then everyone will have to do it, in order to remain competitive. In this case, the effect to the consumer cancels out; value is simply measured in different units. Alternatively, you may see that competing neutral third-party certification providers are naturally established; in that case, everyone needs to maintain the most desirable seal of approval possible in order to remain competitive. Again, the effect cancels out, with value tending to be measured in as-advertised units.
The end result is that skimming only provides a profit if you are the only one who can do it, and if none of your competition uses certification of their product as a marketing advantage.
You may theoretically get around this if you are geographically isolated, but even then it is not guaranteed. It depends on whether or not the amount you are cheating provides a strong enough motivation for a competitor to spring up next door and put you out of business, most likely by advertising the fact that where your product is not ceritified, his product is.
Conversely, under a government-regulatory regime, it is much more likely that you are apt to encounter such cheating. Buying off one or two inspectors for an entire region is a relatively easy thing to do. As those inspectors operate with the prestige of the state, independent certification providers are much less likely to spring up, so your protection in this case hangs on a single peg.
So instead of getting ripped off by 1% at the pump, you're getting ripped off by a bureaucrat.
Government- where doing less with more is a way of life.
More guns! More butter! Sweet buttery guns!
The government inspector who makes sure the tines on sporks are within legally prescribed dimensional tolerances still has a job, though.
Right?
RIGHT?
I know the coming budget apocalypse has everyone quite upset, but fret not fellow libertarians. I'm almost done perfecting my latest invention, and it will save us all.
Introducing...
The Machine gun/Pornography/Bong or MPB for short.
It is "destined to solve all of Americas problems(TM)"!
In fact, when you look at the 60 percent increase in total federal outlays since Bill Clinton left office, the real question becomes: How the hell did we ever get by as a country without all that extra crap that's been around for a decade or less?
I'm not wild about jacking up tax rates, but I'll make a deal with the Democrats if they want it that badly:
Go back to 1998 tax rates, and reduce spending to 1998 levels. Hell, you can even index the spending levels for core CPI inflation. Deal?
If you own the printing press, why tax at all?
Why do we still have more than 50,000 troops in Germany?
So, what is the accuracy level of the certification? How is it done?
If they can't the gas pump is measuring to 99+% accuracy, is there any point in doing this at all? John's mini-thread above convinced me that inaccuracy of 1% or less is imperceptible, ergo harmless.
inaccuracy of 1% or less is imperceptible, ergo harmless.
OMG that's what teh kkkorporations want you to think!!
When just about every cash register, gas pump, etc. is run by embedded software, are they worried that some shady merchant is going to go in an reprogram the machines?
You know, Keynes built his whole reputation around the observation that we can always trust the government to spend every penny it has.
Doesn't it follow naturally from that, that if we want the government to get smaller, rather than wait around for better times, when the government's getting plenty of income, we should be pushing for deep tax cuts now?
When times get tough, maybe everybody needs to do a little math on their odometer if they're worried about it.