Tag: porkbarrel politics

Categories
deficits and debt folly national politics & policies

Earmarked Nation

pork, spending, Congress, debt

The big secret of the federal government’s budget is that there isn’t one.

Instead of proposing a rational budget, Congress spends money in huge omnibus bills, which sweep up most of the big items into a bucket which is then poured out into the economy. Since these buckets contain more money than can actually be found in federal coffers, the consequent deficits are covered by debt. 

Which accumulates. 

Looming larger and more ominous every year.

One way these omnibus bills are managed is that almost no one reads them. As former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare, ya gotta pass it to find out what’s in it.

How to get congressmen to go along with this financial chaos? Bribery. Make the spending binge even bigger with earmarks.

That’s where members of Congress place local boondoggle projects into the omnibus bills and get them through without having to convince anyone but the leadership of the projects’ dubious merits.

I used to talk more about earmarks. But when the Tea Party Republicans entered in 2011, they nixed earmarking “the pork.”

When the Democrats came back into power, the aforementioned Mrs. Pelosi brought them back, which, in the last big omnibus bill, pushed spending up an extra $8 billion or so.

Though Democrats love earmarks as an institutional practice, Republican protests are often merely pro forma. Alabama’s Retiring Republican Senator Richard Shelby, for example, “got $666.4 million down there to Alabama,” explained Tom Temin recently. “Sounds like there’s going to be a lot of Richard Shelby bridges, Richard Shelby schoolhouses, Richard Shelby highways.”

Thankfully, one of the concessions Speaker of the House McCarthy made with the Freedom Caucus (whom the president calls “ultra-​MAGA” and “semi-​fascist”) was to attack the earmarking practice again — after a failure to decide against earmarks late last year.

We’ll see how that goes. But the real test will be the abandonment of omnibus spending packages.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and DALL‑E 2

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture too much government

Fields of Schemes

stadium, pork, waste, spending

Hopes, wishes and cinematic sentiment are not a business plan.

A baseball stadium in Camden, New Jersey is being shut down three years after the team for which it was built has left town.

At the groundbreaking in 2000, then-​Governor Christine Todd Whitman said she’d “heard the message from the movie Field of Dreams: ‘If you build it, they will come.’ Well, soon we will see a field of dreams right here in Camden, and my prediction is ‘they will come.’”

So it’s the movie’s fault?

Officials had hoped that crowds would steadily come to see the Camden Riversharks play ball, boosting the local economy and enabling repayment of the taxpayers’ “investment” of $18 million.

Didn’t work out.

The minor-​league team threw in the towel in 2015 after missing several lease payments. The Camden government bought the property. They couldn’t find a successor team, so now the stadium is going. It will cost another million in taxpayer dollars just to tear it down.

Lesson learned? Er, no. Another taxpayer-​funded development will replace the stadium.

Of course, private investors can also err when spending their own money. But they’re less likely to throw millions at projects with little prospect of profit. When their investments do fail, companies tend to cut their losses much faster than government officials who are ladling out other people’s money.

Unlike many government planners, private investors of private capital are also not eager to keep repeating their worst blunders.

Meanwhile, perhaps best of all, when private investors misjudge a project, non-​investors lose nothing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

 

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets local leaders porkbarrel politics tax policy too much government

Selling Us Out

Maryland legislature, pork, Amazon, tax break, Jeff Bezos, Senator Roger Manno

Last week, Maryland’s Legislature enacted an $8.5 billion package of tax breaks and infrastructure improvements to lure Amazon into building its second corporate headquarters in Montgomery County, Maryland, bordering Washington, D.C.

State Senator Roger Manno, the only legislator from the county to vote against the subsidy, dubbed it “a $5 billion tax break for the richest man in the world.…”*

Today, the Montgomery County Council will consider a further proposal to streamline its zoning process, cutting in half the time the county takes to review a proposed development.

“We are trying to make sure our processes are consistent with everybody else,” County Executive Ike Leggett explained, adding that the county now “sometimes takes 100 to 120 days, while many other jurisdictions are much less than that.”

Did Leggett say “consistent with everybody else”? Well, the new zoning rules won’t apply to every business, just those planning to hire 25,000 workers. Or more. 

“It’s neutral to the employer,” County Council President Hans Riemer slyly suggested. “It’s a proposal that would allow any really large employer to come in and build under certain terms.”

But only Amazon would be large enough.

“Really what it does is it creates predictability, reliability,” offered Riemer. But wouldn’t every other business also benefit from “predictability” and “reliability”?

“I think the Amazon proposal made the county realize … that it needed to look at some of its practices and where it has been criticized,” noted Bob Buchanan, chairman of the Montgomery County Economic Development Corporation. “We were more process versus results.”

And the county intends to remain that way … for “every” current business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* He was referring, of course, to Amazon founder and owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency insider corruption moral hazard national politics & policies porkbarrel politics too much government

Earmark This Bad Argument

earmarks, ear marks, pork, Congress, spending, corrumption, deals

With President Trump endorsing a return to earmarks, House Republicans too are reportedly “reconsidering” their usefulness and pondering “how they might ease back into the practice.” Lawmakers fret that they have lost too much power by giving up this instrument of corruption. (Not their characterization.)

Wikipedia defines “earmark” as a budgetary provision that “directs funds to a specific recipient while circumventing the merit-​based or [competitive] allocation process.” An earmark is a taxpayer-​funded goodie bestowed on a congressman’s constituent, the sort of crony willing to contribute to the bestower’s next election campaign in return. 

Quid pro quo, pay-​for-​play, bribery. Whatever you call it, there’s darn good reason why political leaders who fight corruption have fought to end earmarks.

Congressional Republicans imposed a ban on earmarks in 2011 to show that they were anti-​corruption. So why relapse? Well, “the time is right,” according to GOP Representative John Culberson, for Congress to prove it can use earmarks responsibly. His bad argument is that the “excesses” of a decade ago were committed by “knuckleheads [who] went overboard.” 

Somebody alert Culberson to the fact that many of the same knuckleheads are still in office. Ahem. Congress is not yet term-​limited, remember? 

The more basic point is that earmarks are by nature corrosive of sound government. President Trump’s only metric is apparently “getting [things] done” as opposed to obstructionism, preferring “the great friendliness” when we had earmarks. Sure, stuff got done — a lot more spending, a lot more bad stuff. 

To the extent they’re gone, earmarks should stay gone. The only appropriate action is to make it even harder to bring them back.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders moral hazard porkbarrel politics responsibility too much government

Go Nats?

stadium, Potomac Nationals, pork, free markets, taxes, referendum, crony, welfare

Just a few miles away from where I live sits the stadium of the Potomac Nationals. I’m a fan. I’d hate to see the team we call the P‑Nats leave. 

But … Hasta la vista.

The owner of this minor league affiliate of Major League Baseball’s Washington Nationals is demanding a new stadium. He threatens to move out of Prince William County, Virginia, if he does not get it. 

The Prince William County board of supervisors has already expressed interest in floating bonds to raise the $35 million the fancy new stadium would require — with the privately owned team paying the money back, with interest, over the next 30 years. 

Compared to other crony-​ish deals around the country, not such a terrible taxpayer swindle. Still, zillions of wrongs don’t make this right. County taxpayers would be on the hook in case of default. And if the marketplace believed the team could actually make such payments, a bank or other investors would come to the rescue.

Thankfully, a monkey wrench has been thrown into the deal. A county supervisor has proposed that voters should get a chance to decide, via a November referendum. The board of supervisors will consider the referendum tonight. 

Voters should get the final say. But if there is a referendum, as much as I love having the team here, I will vote NO. I don’t cotton to forcing others to pay for my preferred entertainment. 

Government has certain legitimate roles. Subsidizing sports is not one. 

Even if the new stadium would be closer to my home than the old one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption moral hazard national politics & policies porkbarrel politics too much government

A Wall of Separation

cronyism, pork, stadium, Tom Hanks, ballot initiative, welfare

Whatever you think of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he celebrated the First Amendment for “building a wall of separation between Church & State,” let’s agree that it would have been nice had he penned another letter — to the Waterbury Methodists or someone — urging a wall of separation between Sports and State.

Last week, actor Tom Hanks became another brick in my hoped-​for wall. “It’s a billion-​dollar industry,” Hanks said of the National Football League.

[T]hey have billion-​dollar TV contracts. All the owners are billionaires. And yet when they want to build a stadium they’re going to use for 10 weeks out of the year, they expect the city taxpayers to buy the building.

Hanks is livid. The recent “deal” that lured his beloved Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas included $750 million in public funds to build a $1.9 billion stadium. The Raiders are planning to stay in Oakland for the 2017 and 2018 seasons, while that new stadium is built. “When the Raiders leave,” the beloved star declared, “I am going on an NFL moratorium for two years.”

Unfortunately, Hanks appears more angry that his team is leaving (eventually), than with the principle that taxpayers ought not be ripped off.

Subsidizing businesses is cronyism, not capitalism. It’s even more outrageous when the poor must pay for the rich. 

But how to stop it? In every city where citizens can propose ballot initiatives, let’s petition and pass measures requiring a public vote before any such subsidy.

It may not be the great wall I’d prefer, but it’s a high hurdle providing taxpayers some important protection. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Printable PDF

 

Categories
folly porkbarrel politics responsibility too much government

A Bullet Train to the Head

California, high speed, rail, boondoggle, waste, illustration

Romanticism. The yearning for greatness; the need for speed. Efficiency! It’s all there in California’s high-​speed rail project — hopes and dreams and a sense of the grandeur of progress.

And yet the bullet train project, approved by voters in 2008, is a fiasco.

One can blame the voters, I suppose. At least the 53.7 percent who said yes to a referendum authorizing a 9.95 billion bond. Just to get the project started.

But we shouldn’t, really. All the people pushing the bullet train notion (from Los Angeles to the Bay) said that most of the investment would come from private investors. Further, it would require no ongoing subsidies.

Those assurances, however, “were at best wishful thinking, at worst an elaborate con,” writes Virginia Postrel for Bloomberg.

How bad is it? Total construction cost went from a $33 billion to $68 billion — despite route trimming. The first segment, which is understood to be the easiest to build (shooting through an empty stretch), is four years behind schedule, and still lacks necessary land.

The list of failures goes on and on, and includes a dearth of investors. And then there’s the estimate of the company who got the first bid on the project. It says that the line will almost certainly not be self-sustaining.

“The question now,” Postrel concludes, “is when they’ll have the guts to pull the plug.”

Corruption, hope without realism, business as usual — all these are revealed in the project. And wasn’t the second season of True Detective about this? Let’s hope this real-​world fiasco ends with less bloodshed.

Californians have already lost enough in treasure!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

California, high speed, rail, boondoggle, waste, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets moral hazard porkbarrel politics too much government

Crony Corn

pig, port, corn, ethanol, subsidies, gas, fuel, Common Sense, Paul Jacob

The presidential campaign officially begins in Iowa. The Hawkeye State is also the nation’s corn-​growing champion. Each year, Iowans sell 47 percent of that crop to produce ethanol, which accounts for a not-​insignificant 8 percent of the state’s gross product.

Ethanol has friends in Washington, too. Congressional wizards have mandated that the gasoline pumped into cars throughout the land be diluted with ethanol — talk about a market guarantee!

At National Review, Jeremy Carl explains that “energy-​policy experts of all political stripes can agree … mandates and subsidies to promote the use of corn ethanol (a policy first implemented by Jimmy Carter) are wasteful boondoggles that harm our environment and food supply while imposing billions of dollars of hidden costs on consumers. However, most energy-​policy experts are not running for president in the Iowa caucuses.”

In 2008, both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain flip-​flopped to support the ethanol subsidies they had previously opposed.

But, this year, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul haven’t pandered along.

When Cruz rose to first place in the polls, Gov. Terry Branstad attacked, arguing, “It would be a big mistake for Iowa to support [Cruz]” because “his anti-​renewable fuel stand … will cost us jobs, and will further reduce farm income …”

Yesterday, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Cruz, “Why should [Iowa] voters side with you over the six-​term governor of this state?”

“I think there should be no mandates and no subsidies whatsoever,” Cruz replied.

In today’s Iowa caucus, can Cruz overcome the forces of crony corn?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

pig, port, corn, ethanol, subsidies, gas, fuel, Common Sense, Paul Jacob

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom government transparency moral hazard too much government

Buying Quality of Life

Indiana, pork, Mike Pence, Regional Cities initiative, Common Sense, illustration

People who spend other people’s money in Indiana are applauding their amazing ability to write big checks and hand them out.

The Regional Cities initiative — enacted by the Republican legislature and heralded by the Republican governor — just awarded grants of $42 million of taxpayer dough to three of seven county consortia in the Hoosier State.

“This is big. This is a big deal in Indiana,” Gov. Mike Pence told reporters, “and I believe it’s part of a third century strategy for growth that will pay dividends for generations.”

Really? Government redistribution will fuel “growth” … and “pay dividends”?

The more-​spending “strategy” is “geared toward quality of life projects ranging from economic development and job creation, to improved recreational and arts opportunities,” according to WNDU-​TV in South Bend, adding that, “The Regional Cities Initiative is aimed at the younger generation and giving those people more reasons to love — than leave the state.”

Love it or leave it, eh?

“The public has been told that we have some sort of $42-​million jackpot to spend on wonderful things,” explains Fort Wayne City Councilman Jason Arp in his Indiana Policy Review. “What hasn’t been made clear is that with the award comes [an] obligation not only to match that $42 million with taxpayer and private money but a separate eight-​year commitment to a portfolio of $1.4 billion in projects.…”

In other words, it’s a classic government-​spends-​our-​money-​better-​than-​we-​can program.

The Regional Development Authority will, in the end, “have discouraged actual entrepreneurship, innovation and free enterprise,” Arp explains. In their place? A “sort of unaccountable directorate.”

Growing ever bigger to better spend our hard-​earned dough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Indiana, pork, Mike Pence, Regional Cities initiative, Common Sense, illustration

 

Categories
porkbarrel politics

One Very Fine Pig

The political season is upon us, and people get hung up on the goofiest things. Like jokes.

Sarah Palin jested about hockey moms and pit bulls, the biggest difference between them being, she says, “lipstick.”

Then Barack Obama fought back, attacking the McCain-​Palin ticket and Republican policy in general with another such comparison: “You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”

And, it turns out that them’s fightin’ words, because, well, Mrs. Palin is thought to “own” the word “lipstick,” and, some said, Obama had just called her a pig.

No he didn’t. If one has to deconstruct the whole fracas into symbols, Palin would be the lipstick, McCain the pig.

Of course, Obama was really talking about policies. But which policies of John McCain was Obama complaining about, which were … porcine?

How about McCain’s best issue, pork itself? Unfortunately for him, Sarah Palin has been too pork-​receptive in her days as an Alaskan politician. McCain has resisted pork. He’s not made requesting earmarks part of his job. Obama, on the other hand, though demanding that all pork requests be put up transparently, with full disclosure, is known to ask for quite a lot. In fact, nearly a million dollars for every day he’s been in office.

It’s a pity that in all this talk of lipstick-​wearing pigs, the real pork issue gets lost. No joke.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.