The government shutdown and subsequent debate in Washington, D.C., over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling has consumed our national conversation this past month.
As Floyd Norris, writing in the New York Times, points out in a fascinating economic history of the United States since Franklin D. Roosevelt, the debate is really over whether the country will make the single biggest economic mistake in our history and give up our unprecedented economic advantage around the world all because of a political minority’s opposition over how to run our health care system. He points out that, while an involuntary default is not possible (the country can print its own money to pay its bonds), a voluntary default would be equally, if not more, devastating for our country and the world economy.
Political acrimony, it seems, has become the norm in our nation’s capital and has replaced true policy debates with mere political sport. Judging from the latest opinion polls, citizens around the country are not impressed or amused by this inability to govern, sending approval ratings of Congress to their lowest level on record.
In Harrisburg, however, we have found a different model for solving our fiscal crisis. Reasonable Republicans, led by the top elected Republican in Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Corbett, worked together—through the receiver Bill Lynch—with reasonable Democrats in a primarily Democratic city to craft the Harrisburg Strong Plan. Importantly, Mayor Linda Thompson negotiated on behalf of the citizens of Harrisburg and was joined by all seven Democrats on City Council in adopting the plan.
Our governor could have certainly ignored a city where he received few votes, but he did not. The mayor could have refused to compromise or work with a “Republican, state-appointed” receiver, but she did not. City Council took its time and sought independent advice, but unanimously embraced the plan. All realized the need to work together for the betterment of our citizens. Others in the state legislature and county government played their important rolls, again in a bipartisan effort.
The beginning of a Harrisburg turnaround story has not gone unnoticed in the national press. Articles touting the plan have appeared in such news outlets as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, Reuters, The Bond Buyer (which I have to admit, I have not previously read) and many others. While Harrisburg, for years, has been on the receiving end of numerous articles and even jokes as a symbol of municipal crisis, the tide is now turning. One analysis in Barron’s stated, “[A]ssuming approval, this plan will stand as a strong example of a collaborative approach to dealing with extreme municipal fiscal distress.”
This national attention is important for our city and our region. Being seen not as the nation’s fiscal basket case, but as a city of reasonable people who can solve their problems through compromise and negotiation can only reflect positively on all of us. It may be too soon to declare “compromise” and “ability to work together” as our regional export, but a case is certainly building.
So what are the elements of “the Harrisburg model” that the rest of the country could learn from? Many will parse through the process, and a complete history will emerge only down the road and be judged, no doubt in large part, on where we go from here. However, I believe that two key elements will be a part of any historical accounting: trust and the desire to solve a public policy problem without concern for personal political gain.
Trust. The governor’s hiring of Gen. Bill Lynch after David Unkovic resigned brought continued confidence to all sides and reaffirmed a belief that the state was serious about finding a solution that works. Regardless of any preconceived notions about others around the table, the general’s appointment caused all sides to behave responsibly and to negotiate in good faith. By all accounts, the receiver and his affable, open, no-nonsense, get-the-job-done style was crucial to bringing and keeping all players at the table. Everyone there could trust that, if they compromised on key points—which they all had to do—the general was going to do all he could to keep the others there as well.
Policy, not politics. There are few parallels between a city with $400 million in municipal debt and a nation facing $16 trillion in national debt. However, the manner in which our elected officials approached both problems is revealing. Here in Harrisburg, the officials did what we elected them to do: sit down, debate in public and in private, and negotiate in good faith to solve a problem. They did not hold daily or hourly press conferences about who was to blame and how no progress was being made because of the other side. They understood, instead, that failure to find compromise could cripple our city for years to come—much like failure in Washington could cripple our national and even global economy. Washington could do worse than to consult with the folks in Harrisburg who helped us set aside personal politics for sound policy and positive outcomes.
The final, crucial step in all of this, of course, is for the plan to be finalized and then properly implemented over the next four years. To do that, we need to elect a mayor who has strongly endorsed the Harrisburg Strong Plan and pledged to carry it out for the benefit of all citizens rather than one who, like a tea party legislator opposed to Obamacare, has worsened our problems through acrimony, lawsuits and petty games while clinging selfishly, stubbornly and, against all reason, to delusions of bankruptcy. I am optimistic that Harrisburg residents will make the right choice on Nov. 5.
J. Alex Hartzler is publisher of TheBurg.
