viernes, 6 de noviembre de 2009
Do Earmarks Matter?
Making fun of earmarked Congressional spending is easy, feel-good entertainment. In this regard Sen. John McCain's Twitter feed, in which he reels off outrageous examples of pork-barrel spending (we especially liked "$300,000 for Texas A&M for 'Texas Height Modernization'") is a laugh factory. But is the war on pork a distraction from a larger problem? In 2008, Congress earmarked $17.2 billion for special projects. That amounts to less than one half of one percent of all Federal spending last year. The figure is less than NASA's 2008 budget ($17.3 billion) and less than half of the $35 billion the country spent on foreign aid last year (is there a "Finland Height Modernization" program?). A recent paper found almost no correlation between the amount of pork in a given year and the size of that year's deficit. The authors conclude: "While increasing levels of pork may be symptomatic of a larger government spending problem, they are not the underlying cause."
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
I don't think that the pork is the problem so much as it is the symptom of the problem.. In most cases the projects and pork spending amounts to little more than hush money for members of Congress. When a bill comes up that someone doesn't like the way you get their vote is you throw some pork their way. While the amount of the earmarked spending isn't very much in total it covers up the large very expensive bills that get passed because of this hush money.
ResponderEliminarEarmarks were originally designed so that projects and bills to small to validate having their own bills could be tacked on to larger bills for ease of use.
On another note it does strike me as rather sad that we now look at over $17 billion dollars of wasted spending a year as nothing important. In fact, in the current health care bill it would be a rounding error.
"The authors conclude:
ResponderEliminarEarmarks amount to about $50 for every single American. I'm under no illusion that eliminating earmarks doesn't make a dent in the deficit nor in the amount of taxes I pay/owe. I'll even concede that some earmarks may actually be well spent. However, I'm also under no illusion that giving that $50 back to every American is probably a far better use of that money that lining the pockets of the well connected.
ResponderEliminarI know a number of people where even just $50 can make a world of difference.
Would you mind if I "only" robbed $50 from you each year?
A lengthy quote from PJ O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores":
ResponderEliminarThis is the first mistake made by most budget critics. They page through the minutiae in the "Notes and Appendices to the U.S. Budget," sifting the "Detailed Budget Estimates by Agency" section until they come up with something like the Department of the Interior's Helium Fund. Which really exists:
The Helium Act Amendments of 1960, Public Law 86-777 (50 U.S.C. 167), authorized activities necessary to provide sufficient helium to meet the current and foreseeable future needs of essential government activities.
Then the budget critics grow very indignant or start making dull, budget-critic-type helium jokes.
The Helium Fund is amazingly stupid, even by government standards, but it only costs around $19 million -- .0015 percent of 1991 federal spending. [This guide] would be as large as the budget itself if I tried to balance that budget by eliminating Helium Funds. And, if you think about it, running a Helium Fund is just the kind of thing our politicians should be doing. It's much less expensive and harmful to the nation than most of what they do, plus, with any luck, they'll float away.
With a current population of 300 million, $17 billion in spending means every man, woman, and child paid out $51 for these earmarks. For my family of 3, that figures climbs to $153. All so that senators can be corrupt and retain the status quo.
ResponderEliminarNegligent spending will never be acceptable and is a by product of government itself.
In one area I know that earmarks have been identified as a source of significant inefficiency. Significant research indicates that money spent on roads is a poor investment. E.g., research by Cliff Winston at Brookings and others concluded that the economic benefits from highway investments is plummeting: from 17.6% annual return in the 70s to 4.9% in the 80s and to 1% in the 90s. The authors attribute this decline to several factors, including Congressional earmarks and failing to charge people appropriately for the costs they impose in using roads. We also know that expanding roads has many costs. Because expansions lead to so much more driving, there
ResponderEliminarEarmarks certainly can be a waste of money, although not all earmarks are for useless projects. On the other hand, I agree that earmarks are a miniscule part of the overall budget, and John McCain was disingenuous in his repeated assertions that eliminating earmarks would have a major impact toward solving the budget deficit. It made for nothing but a good sound bite and rallying cry.
ResponderEliminarEarmarks don't create any spending. The money has already been authorized. The earmarks just dictate how it's spent. So it's the Congressperson's job to earmark it. If I don't earmark it for my district, someone else will for theirs. If no one does, then it goes in the hands of the executive, which is not the solution. That's how it works. The solution is not to end earmarks, but to cut down on authorized spending in the first place. Ending earmarks won't cut the deficit one bit.
ResponderEliminarAre you seriously going to pick on the 1% spent on foreign aid when American GDP (PPP) per capita is 400% of the global average? Another 1% would go a long way towards solving global hunger: euronews.net/2009/10/16/un-asks-for-44-billion-to-fight-global-hunger/
ResponderEliminarEarmarks are an entertaining whipping boy for those who wish to emphasize the inefficiency of government. In some cases this ridicule is justified, but of greater importance is the fact that earmark spending facilitates legislative compromise. In an era when the yawning partisan divide threatens any effort to govern down the middle, earmarks serve an important role in promoting practical rather than ideological governance.
ResponderEliminarIt's not the amount that is the problem, it's the system that allows lawmakers to direct money to a specific pet project instead of letting the agency in question decide how to spend its own budget.
ResponderEliminarEarmarks are a symbol of what is wrong with our government. The kind of thinking that a few billion dollars aren't important shocks most Americans., and sneaking programs into legislation that a good part of the population would never vote for is unethical. Unfortunately, no matter how good a government program is, someone in Congress finds a way to distort it's purpose.
ResponderEliminarSuppose you knew your uncle would pay for the family vacation if you left it out of your budget. Wouldn't you be tempted to underfund vacations and fund other things instead?
ResponderEliminarIt's naive to think that agencies are at the whim of Congress and don't know how to play these games.
I agree with everyone above that we ought to drastically cut earmarks for states and districts in which I do not reside....
ResponderEliminarI agree with those that pork is symptom rather than the disease. The real problem, I think, is that the members of congress have abdicated their duty to do what is best for the country and have instead agreed to use tax monies to fund their own re-election campaigns. If the projects that are funded are worthwhile they should be able to withstand the scrutiny of the congress and funding should be provided in a bill passed on its own merits.
ResponderEliminarGiven the dollars presented in the original post, I'm having a beautiful day-dream: end earmarks, double NASA's budget, and enjoy the ripples from innovations that enhance life here on earth.
ResponderEliminarThe more one knows about an earmarked project the less one has to complain. Perhaps this is why titles, even deceptive title are such important things.
ResponderEliminarCheck out your favorite reasons to complain:
earmarks.omb.gov/
My complaints are more general....do we really need to be able to fight World War 2 over again? Do we really need to put ejection seats in advanced fighter aircraft?
"Texas Height Modernization" does sound silly and wasteful. But it isn't talking about human height. It's about making GPS units able to accurately pinpoint the elevation, not just latitude and longitude. That seems less wasteful to me.
ResponderEliminartsrc.cbi.tamucc.edu/THM/HomePage
$17.3 billion here and $17.3 billion there. Pretty soon it adds up to real money.
ResponderEliminarIn other words - it all matters.
(To the last quote) Amen!
ResponderEliminarTo me, the main issue is that politicians are using MY money to bribe persons (electorate) to keep them in office. I don't care if it is only one dollar, it is political gangsterism as far as I am concerned.
ResponderEliminarTim,
ResponderEliminarIs it okay for a hungry, homeless person to rob you at gunpoint so that he can buy food? Is it okay for that person to kill you if you don't comply by handing over your wallet?
What about if the hungry, homeless person assembles a group of people from around the community, and they vote to hire someone to rob you at gunpoint (and shoot you, if necessary) in order to provide the hungry person with food money?
Taxes are, essentially, a group of people getting together and deciding to rob you at gunpoint (you go to jail if you don't pay up, you get shot if you try to get out of jail) in order to pay for something that they think is good. But wait, you say, you can vote in this context - although your vote doesn't count AT ALL at the federal level. But fine, let's say a group of ten men surrounds you and you all vote on whether you have to hand over your wallet to feed that very hungry person; the group decides 10-1 that you should pay up or get shot - you think that's moral? After all, the hungry person was, well, very very hungry.
Taxes are robbery at gunpoint. Feeding the hungry is a noble cause. Sure, you may think that taxes are great and dandy when you get to approve of what the stolen money is given to - but it's still theft. There are lots of good causes that I support - should I be able to hold a gun to your head and give you a choice between surrendering your life and liberty or your wallet in order to support those good causes?
I'm not arguing that taxes are always wrong or that there should be no taxes - but when you move beyond roads and armies and the like into "things that could benefit some group" and "good causes" you enter a realm in which there is no legitimate question that taxation is in fact morally wrong. And why are we taxing to end world hunger, when we could help people with AIDS, or address malaria, or educate every third-world child, or save the seals, or cure breast cancer, or any of a billion worthy causes? Besides, once you move into "stealing from A to fund a good cause," you can't draw lines between "solving world hunger" and "rebuilding a damaged bridge that's very important to a small town" and "providing musical instruments to all elementary-schoolchildren." And even if Congress gets to fund good causes, you don't get to choose which "good causes" the stolen money goes to. You can hope there's enough popular and political support for the good causes that you like, but the money that you would've used to support yourself and your family is ultimately going to go to something that someone somewhere thought was a "good cause" - like to the Helium Fund, or to a welfare recipient who declined an opportunity to work more hours because he'd lose more in welfare benefits than he'd gain in wages.
Good causes are good, and it's excellent when individuals champion them. You want to end world hunger? Volunteer, donate, create a charitable organization, help build public interest. Don't hold a gun up to your neighbor's head and offer him a "choice" between surrendering his life or his wallet - and certainly don't get a group of people to do it for you.
Consider this: $17.2 billion divided by 535 (house + senate) people.
ResponderEliminarThat's about $32.1 million per politician. You can corrupt a lot of people with that kind of money. Bureaucrats should never have access to this money since it belongs to taxpayers and can yield a lot of influence.
That's the real issue here with earmarks. Consider also it's an increasing and recurring cost.
ykjay,
ResponderEliminarHelium is a critical component of many high-tech and scientific applications. One such use is to cool superconducting magnets in MRI machines. For most, if not all of the applications, there is no substitute for helium There are serious concerns in the scientific community that the demand for helium may soon outstrip the limited supply. Maintaining the helium supply is in our national interest.
Does Senator McCain realize the funds were intended to "update topographical elevation models"? Does he know what 'topgraphical' means or why industry relies on these surveys to aid in a variety of site location, construction, cell tower, recreation, and other purposes?
ResponderEliminarI do agree, however, that earmarks lack the transparency they need. Topopgraphical Elevation Models are great, but why fund them ad-hoc through earmarks and not through a national science foundation grant?
"Small" things like earmarks can have large consequences. An earmark is a way that a member of Congress can directly repay a contributor. Thus, it is an important opportunity for corruption. Once a Congressman has sold himself this way, there are no limits to his corruption. The Freakonomics authors clearly have not considered the effects that earmarks can have on the rest of the budget process.
ResponderEliminarI actually looked up what the Texas Height Modernization is, and it seems like a reasonable project, though I don't see how just Texas A&M spends $300k on their part of it). Wikipedia describes it as "The goal of each state program is to place GPS base stations at various locations within each participating state to measure topographic changes in the directions of latitude and longitude caused by subsidence or earthquakes, as well as to measure changes in height (elevation)."
ResponderEliminarIn transportation earmarks tend to leverage a lot more money. E.g., someone gets an earmark for $100M or $500M, which is a small part of project costs. Then the transportation agencies come up with hundreds of millions or billions more to cover the full "cost". Which is very frequently understated. Taking that money from higher-rated projects. Then there are frequently cost overruns, often to cover the original dishonesty and often legitimate overruns. And earmarks usually seem to be for projects that are flashy, expensive and provide very little if any public benefit. But they almost always benefit the construction industry and often developers.
ResponderEliminarTried posting this earlier.. not sure what happened.
ResponderEliminar$17.2 billion / 535 representatives is about $32 million. That's way too much power and influence in the hands of so few people.
tsrc.cbi.tamucc.edu/THM/HomePage
ResponderEliminaren.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_Modernization
This sounds like a reasonable use of public funds to me. it is sort of a refined geological survey. The poster of this article should find a more ludicrous example to ensure that hilarity will ensue.
@ Congressman Seghers
ResponderEliminarThen why don't earmark it for deficit reduction?
One problem though is that the money is misspent. John Murtha doesn't need an airport almost entirely for himself. The money that he got spent on his airport should probably have gone to an airport that has more than two flights a day.
ResponderEliminarAnd it really does have a cost. For example, when Hurricane Katrina hit, it turned out that the levees needed to have had work, that had not gotten done. It turns out though that it wasn't due to Corps of Engineering negligence. Rather, those levees were apparently the high priority project for LA. And it wasn't from not having any money, since LA had one of the highest Corps budgets per capita in the country. Instead, it turned out that the LA politicians had routinely reallocated the money that should have gone for those levees, and spent it on projects with more immediate political payoffs.
Indeed, the military in general has this problem. The latest bill with money for supplies had a bunch siphoned off for pet projects. The result is that plenty of money is being spent, but the troops aren't going to get their bullets, etc.
Without reading the paper, I will make the claim that the authors may not understand the purpose of earmarks. The earmarks get the politician to vote for a spending bill that they would otherwise vote against. So, the earmarks could be the VERY reason that spending has risen so much.
ResponderEliminarHeight Modernization earmark
ResponderEliminarDue to subsidence (along with climate change), current outdated and inaccurate elevations are putting coastal communities in harm
Sarah,
ResponderEliminarI understand your point and it's certainly a fair opinion. It's worth considering for what reasons and in what magnitude the government should be allowed to take our money (involuntarily) and redistribute it to someone else. But if we go down that road then I think the same logic should be applied to taxation more generally; for instance, do you agree with our proportional model of income tax - where two people might receive the same benefit but pay different amounts? Do people in lower tax brackets 'put a gun to the head of' the rich and 'steal' their money? Or is it different when the money is given to someone in another country?
You suggest it's hard to draw a line 'when you move beyond roads and armies and the like'. But how do you justify abitrarily drawing (or, more accurately, sketching) the line there yourself? What if one person objects to their money being 'stolen' and spent on an army or a road? To me the categories 'things that could benefit some group' and 'good causes' pretty much classify all government spending. What other categories are there that money should be spent on?
Charity aside, there is a case for some level of transfer to developing countries because of the negative externalities created by the West. If, through global warming for instance (assuming you believe in it), we cause damage to African farmland, affecting the livelihood of people who are already in danger of starvation, I think we owe them something for that damage.
If you like you can pretend that you've earned everything you have, but I feel we've had a head start that we didn't earn, and that we have a moral obligation to give as many people as possible the same opportunities that those in developed countries are born with.
Earmarks are a symptom of and invitation to corruption.
ResponderEliminarThey should be attacked vigorously along with: targeted tax exemptions; corporate subsidies (including agricultural subsidies) and unnecessary military bases kept operational for political reasons.
If anything, this statistic shows how bad the problem has become. Last year earmarks were $17 billion, and represented a statistically small percentage of the budget, so it wasn't that big of a deal. This year we already have over $700 billion in earmarks, with hundreds of billions more potentially on the way in the next few months alone. It has become a very significant issue under the new leadership.
ResponderEliminarwhat's missed in this short analysis is not that pork volume is significant in comparison to the larger budget/deficent, but rather that is a catylst to a larger problem - Congressional Hubris. These agregious examples of prok spending just highlight the DISREGARD our "representatives" have towards their responsibility to be judicious with the PEOPLE'S money.
ResponderEliminarIt's that very fact that has given rise to the Tea Party movement. People are getting sick and tired of this attitude. Spend your own money reklessly, but not mine.
doesn't earmark spending added to important legislation cause us to settle for less than our best?
ResponderEliminar