Being `frugal’ is only half the battle in budgeting
Jimmer continues drive toward Olympics, wins Silver in FIBA 3 on 3 tourney
By Ken Tingley
“Frugal” is one of my favorite words.
You might even describe it as my own personal economic philosophy.
Some might call it “being cheap.”
When finances got tight, especially in those early days as a sportswriter, I figured I had two choices: Get a second job or stop spending.
I stopped spending.
That meant no late nights at the bar in Plattsburgh and no long-distance phone calls to my girlfriend in Kentucky. For those who have only known cell phones, yeah, we had to pay extra - by the minute - to talk long distance.
Before considering marriage, I read an article arguing financial stress was the leading cause of divorce. So I worked hard to save my money, because I didn’t want to get divorced.
After getting married, when we spent too much on Christmas, had unexpected car repairs or splurged while on vacation, I stopped spending.
I went all austerity.
It is part of the reason why we waited 14 years to have a child. We wanted to make sure we could afford one. It turned out, they could be expensive.
When my son went out into the world a few years ago, I had very specific economic advice: Always pay off your credit card, take advantage of your company’s 401k retirement plan and if you are having trouble paying your bills - stop spending.
For years, I felt the same about government budgets.
Just run the government like your household budget, I argued. Plenty of politicians have argued that as well. It’s a pretty simple philosophy, but as I’ve read about economic theory, I’ve discovered it is a bad idea. Government finances are much different than personal finances, despite what some politicians argue.
Elected officials often argue that the best way to lower the debt and keep the economy humming is to cut spending.
We heard a lot of that during the recent debate over the debt ceiling. That’s a good discussion to have and we haven’t had it in a long time. Politicians on both sides of the aisle earn votes by spending taxpayer money for their home districts, so it was nice to see them tap the brakes and vow to do better. But really, that’s all they did.
There is actually one economic theory endorsing taking on more debt during difficult economic times. See the Great Depression, the recent Great Recession and most recently the pandemic.
The problem with the recent debate is that Republicans see it as just a spending problem.
Despite my own ability to just “stop spending” - feel free to pat me on the back - the reality is that governments can’t just stop spending because its spending is far-reaching and impacts millions. I was able to maintain and improve my lifestyle over the years, not only because of my frugality, but because I got annual raises. Part of the government’s problem is a tax-revenue problem.
Democrats regularly propose to tax the rich while Republicans argue they should get tax cuts that will lead to investment and more jobs. Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget office - its nonpartisan - has pretty much debunked the Republicans theory. The recent Trump tax cut for the rich added significantly to the country’s debt. So have other tax cuts going all the way back to Reagan.
Cutting spending while adding revenue is the sweet spot.
Every time I got a raise during my career, I increased my savings for retirement.
When the kid graduated and the tuition bills stopped, my finances improved.
When I finally paid off my mortgage a few years ago, my finances improved dramatically.
It’s a combination of less debt and more income.
Thankfully, we all can take a deep breath that the debt ceiling crisis is behind us. Unemployment is low and the economy seems to be moving forward, although not dramatically so.
But Republicans are now poised to introduce a new round of business tax cuts that would most likely add to the country debt.
From 2011 to 2023, the national debt more than doubled from $15 trillion to $31 trillion. And despite the recent deal, the debt is expected to keep growing over the next 10 years as Baby Boomers retire and cash in on Social Security. The debt held by the public will be nearly 20 percent larger in 2033 than it is today.
Politicians aren’t going to be able to cut their way out of this. They are going to need more revenue, too.
Nobody wants to pay more in taxes, but if you can afford to pay more, if it improves the greater good, then it is something to be considered.
Jimmer wins Silver
Former Glens Falls standout Jimmer Fredette, continues to pursue his dream of being an Olympian by playing 3 on 3 basketball for Team USA.
The U.S. team, led by Fredette, took the Silver Medal this past weekend at the FIBA 3X3 World Cup.
It was almost a gold.
Fredette’s last second shot went in and out as the U.S, lost to Serbia.
The 3 on 3 format is two teams of three playing half-court basketball in a 10-minute game. Regular baskets count as one point, 3 point baskets count as 2 points.
The game ends when a team reaches 21 points, or the 10-minute clock expires.
Also on Team USA with Fredette are Canyon Berry, son of Rick Berry, former Princeton star Karen Maddox and 3X3 veteran Dylan Travis.
Thanks for another excellent article. Like you, I'm concerned about both spending and debt. Most people take for granted the services government provides: roads, bridges, water, environmental protection, parks, support for the less fortunate, the list goes on and on. But debt can also be crippling, even for the federal government, because the growing interest on that debt must be paid. Unfortunately, taxes has become a five letter word, so while expenses rise, they are not matched by revenue. And it's future generations that will be increasingly affected. But perhaps the recent debt deal is a hopeful sign that democrats and republicans can work together to address this, and other, seemingly intractable problems.
Good column.
I’m a cheapskate. Partly it’s a function of having been poor for a long part of my adult life, so I’ve gotten past the point where advertisers can overly influence me with shiny new stuff. But I don’t waste money on cheap junk either. Quality tires save lives, running on sketchy tires in the rain and snow is false economy. By the same token running fat off-road tires just to look cool is expensive and wasteful.
I attended the opening ceremony of the new LG water treatment plant. It’s a $25+ million facility to replace one built in the 30’s. That plant was many decades past its useful life and had not been updated to modern standards. As a result nutrients that irreversibly diminished water quality in Lake George were flowing into what we like to think of as the pristine basis of our local tourism economy. It would take a sophisticated economic/ecological analysis to get a solid number on the cost to our environment stemming from waiting many decades past the useful life of the old treatment plant for a replacement. Almost certainly the cost was far greater than the extra millions it cost to build the new plant - which was known to be necessary. So it was appropriate that Democrats at the state and federal level provided millions to build the new plant. I don’t remember the number, something like $19million of the cost?
I was struck by a comment from BOS Chair Kevin Geraghty at the opening. He said, “that (old) plant didn’t owe us anything.” I think he believed allowing the outdated plant to operate for decades was economical, that we saved money. That is the kind of “fiscal conservatism” that hurts us. It is false economy. It’s like trying to get a few more miles out of your bald tires in December.