The recent pronouncements and exhortations from some of Pittsburgh's most powerful and prominent persons in support of countywide government consolidation bring to mind a storied exchange between President John F. Kennedy and the then-Speaker of the House, the legendary Sam Rayburn. As the story goes, the president was extolling the accomplishments and acumen of his Cabinet appointees, many of whom were considered "the best and the brightest" of the business and academic elite, to which Speaker Rayburn allegedly retorted: "Maybe so, but have they ever run for sheriff?"

Apocryphal or not, the point of the story is that one's stature in business or higher education does not necessarily translate into an appreciation of how government should be run.

Not surprisingly, none of the prominent local "consolidationists" has ever run for sheriff. More to the point, few, if any, of those who would merge local governments into a "one voice" countywide institution have served as a commissioner, councilman or supervisor in any of the local communities they seek to eliminate, and they clearly do not appreciate the vital role of local governments in our democratic society. To that end, they should consider the following:

• A govenment merger does not make economic sense. The consolidationists, relying on their view that "government should be run like a business," hypothesize that a merger would create a more streamlined system of government, as if democracy is akin to the manufacture of widgets. In fact, traditional economic principles belie this hypothesis, teaching that a number of competitive entities in the same line of business leads to lower prices, increased productivity and better products, all of which benefit the consumer.

Consequently, the very model the consolidationists espouse -- a large, all-encompassing county government -- is just what economics teaches we do not need. Compare county government with any number of suburban communities and ask which does a better job of delivering government services while keeping budgets and taxes under control. The answer is obvious and explains why the suburbs are not clamoring to join the county government.

---

OPINION 250:

To commemorate Pittsburgh's 250th anniversary, the Post-Gazette Forum section is running articles throughout the year that explore how the region can build on its past to make a better future. Unsolicited viewpoints also are welcome for possible publication in the newspaper or at post-gazette.com. Send e-mail to: opinion@post-gazette.com (Please include Opinion 250 in the subject line.)

• • • Post-Gazette coverage of the city's birthday

---

• The county cannot handle consolidation. What has Allegheny County done to demonstrate that it could handle more government responsibility? The answer is nothing.

The county government has a long way to go before the public should even consider entrusting it with more responsibility. County home rule can hardly be declared a success, not with a track record of two failed property assessments by the prior administration, an unconstitutional property assessment system imposed by the current administration, structural deficits, an unnecessary drink tax, an insolvent Port Authority, a hemorrhaging 911 system, a white elephant international airport and row-office consolidation which to date has done nothing more than give the county chief executive more power. The recent financial report issued by the county controller makes it clear that county government is headed in the wrong direction.

Ironically, under the professional guidance of its Act 47 coordinator and oversight board, the city of Pittsburgh is working through its financial issues and, although it has a long way to go in reducing its legacy of debt, it is now generating budget surpluses. The city finished last year with a $133 million surplus.

The county, on the other hand, spent more than $1.517 billion against revenues of $1.493 billion, resulting in a $23.5 million loss in net asset value. This occurred with the county having had the benefit of $41.8 million in one-time revenues.

The difference between the fiscal trends of the city and county are clearly attributable to the fact that the city is now being overseen by government professionals, while the county is controlled by a single politician (much as the city had been previously). While the county's financial condition is nowhere near as bad as the city's was pre-Act 47, its shoddy fiscal performance hardly makes the county an attractive merger partner.

• Consolidation would disenfranchise the voters. Each of us would be one voice out of more than a million, assuming of course, that consolidation does not accelerate migration out of the county. Consequently, our input into important government functions such as police and fire protection, and public works, would be greatly diminished. Instead of being able to go to one's community government to be heard, one instead would be among the masses petitioning the least democratic government in the commonwealth.

Allegheny County government, by virtue of its home-rule charter, is essentially autocratic. Although home rule was touted by the same persons who now seek consolidation as being more democratic than the former three-commissioner form of government, it is not. The home-rule charter confers vast powers on the chief executive, with few checks and balances provided by County Council. As a result, the chief executive has more power in his domain than the mayor of Pittsburgh, the mayor of Philadelphia and the governor. He certainly has more power than any politician in any of the so-called local "fiefdoms."

To coalesce further power and authority under a countywide chief executive runs counter to democracy and to the federal spirit expressed in the U.S. Constitution, which makes it clear, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, that power is ultimately reserved to the people.

Our forefathers were not concerned about the efficient delivery of widgets when they framed the Constitution. Rather, they were concerned with crafting a federal system of representation that would make the government responsive to the will of the people, whose rights to self-determination would be guaranteed and vigorously protected.

Local governments, the latter- day manifestation of the "town hall meeting," are the backbone of this system, and they should not be cast aside in the pursuit of nonexistent efficiencies from a monolithic countywide government.