Isn't it curious how a lack of money makes it hard to pay your bills?
Officials and residents of Scranton, Pa., are evidently just now picking up on that fact.
Scranton has been spending more than it is taking in. (Sound familiar, Washington?) And now, the revenue from tax collections is more or less gone. Kaput. History.
On one recent Monday, for instance, the city owed $3.4 million in vendor bills, including health insurance payments. City officials, however, had only $133,000 on hand.
Whatever is one to do?
Why, you do what you have to do when excessive spending leaves you unable to meet your financial obligations: You belatedly slash spending in agonizing ways that might have been avoided had some common sense and fiscal conservatism been practiced early on.
In Scranton's case, Mayor Chris Doherty has cut spending by reducing the salaries of the city's 400 employees - including firefighters and police - to minimum wage. Yep, that guy who risks his life to save children from burning buildings is now earning less than most teenaged burger-flippers.
"If I had the money, I'd pay them," Doherty told The Times-Tribune of Scranton.
Whether the city can make full payroll in a week or two remains decidedly iffy. The newspaper reported that Scranton is "still running on fumes" and expects to have a $17 million budget deficit for the year.
In return for Doherty's act of desperation, multiple unions representing city workers intend to sue him - apparently on the theory that you really can get blood from turnips.
Thus Scranton meets the principle of cause and effect, as have Jefferson County, Ala.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Vallejo, Calif.; Central Falls, R.I. and other municipalities that have had to throw in the towel and declare bankruptcy after they refused to match their spending to their revenue.
Call them reckless if you like. Chuckle about their irresponsibility if it makes you feel better.
But don't laugh too heartily. Your town could be next.