One would be tempted to feel pity for some politicians compelled to listen to inane suggestions – from the public and bureaucrats alike – but only if they stopped acting on said inanities.

Unfortunately, that’s the never the case.

Politicians have no one but themselves to blame for enacting wasteful and often silly ideas. And the public should be heaping blame and shame in equal measures, starting with unelecting those responsible for foisting bad policies on the public.

That’s a list that includes the likes of police-state rules that have already dragged us into depths unseen even by George Orwell. More pragmatically, it’s the like of expensive and underutilized services, locally illustrated in such things as light rail transit, bike lanes and 30 km/h speed limits. Virtue signalling on causes du jour has become a popular pastime across federal, provincial and municipal lines, serving up new ways to spend money while providing little, if any, benefit to the public.

In fact, spending with little, if any, benefit could be the motto for government hiring practices.

We need politicians who can say no. What’s more, politicians who say “begone” to those who pitch absurdities. (Perhaps a polite “thank you, but please never come back” might be the more Canadian approach.)

Of course, we get no such common sense. Instead, profligacy abounds such that taxes skyrocket even as life is made worse by those ostensibly charged with making it better.

Given that it’s budget season municipally – and upcoming for senior governments – now is a good time to remind politicians cuts are what’s needed. Even rolling back spending to the overly inflated level of, say, five years ago would go a long way to repairing the damage of self-serving bloat that has become the norm.

Any talk of reversing years of above-inflation tax increases – leaving aside never-justified utility increases – and rolling back both staff numbers and payroll is met with the utmost resistance. Apologists, both staff and politicians, quickly resort to saying any changes would result in cuts to frontline services, as if that’s the only recourse … and a truth in and of itself. It’s not.

Citizens, however, might have other suggestions rather than such cuts, starting with rollbacks of council salaries and extending to layoffs and reductions of salaries. A multi-year freeze, at any rate.

That’s beyond the pale for bureaucrats.

Given that wages make up the largest single expense for municipalities, local councils are predisposed to pass on those costs to taxpayers without a second thought.

While most of us realize tax increases are inevitable over the long term due to the increased costs for real, hard goods, not just featherbedding, the key is to make them worthwhile.

The idea is to identify the most essential of services offered to residents, then to begin trimming away at everything else.

As with governments of all stripes, program bloat and internal entitlements become entrenched. In budget deliberations, there is a rationale for every spending request. Taken in isolation, each may make sense, but it’s the role of elected officials to see the big picture, and to nip in the bud empire-building and incremental growth.

Unable to make basic cuts, however, governments are certainly not going to consider, let alone make the tough decisions. Much easier to keep on spending, putting off the issue until the crunch comes … ideally long after someone else is in office. But just like pension reform, changes must be made now to avoid crises later.

And the fewer crises the better, as they are invariably used by anti-government organizations, typically on the right, as an excuse for changes that benefit the few at the expense of the rest of us. Every boondoggle and every mismanaged situation serves to undermine the legitimacy of government, in turn opening it up to the threat of would-be reformers. Ontarians suffering from tax fatigue and becoming fed up with the exorbitant cost of public sector wages, benefits and pensions, could easily reach the breaking point, becoming willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

With that in mind, public sector unions already moaning and complaining about inflation would be wise to shut their mouths, duck their heads and prepare to give back after years of overly-generous contracts. Many of the jobs could see wages cut in half and still have a long line of people waiting to take them: remember, inclusion on the sunshine list puts someone in the top five per cent of wage earners, and represents more than twice the average income.

Given that wages make up more than half of government costs, serious rollbacks would be an enticing way to deal with the likes of bloated budgets and deficits. The public appears poised to go along with that line of thinking.

And the sentiment isn’t contained just to any one level of government. Municipalities, too, are ripe for an overhaul, as spending driven by wage increases has fuelled huge property tax increases locally even as real-world incomes have declined over time.

Local politicians interviewed trot out the old chestnut about ‘everybody wants services to continue, not face cuts.’ Costs increases because they don’t contain them. They also have no appetite for making tough decisions: it’s much easier to say ‘yes.’ In reality, there are supporters for every program where money is spent, no matter how few people are served – see the extension of bus service to Woolwich, for instance.

Politicians must learn to say no, learn to sell the benefits of not spreading resources so thin such that many things are done but done poorly – mission creep that serves bureaucratic interests but does nothing for the public is commonplace. The current cast of characters at all levels who aren’t doing that today must learn to do so, or be prepared to make room for those who can.