Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Thursday
November 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Big Government, Waste & Government Reform
This chart, put together by Matthew Mitchell of the Mercatus Center, offers some historical insight into what we can expect in terms of spending from the newly divided government.
Monday
October 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Big Government, Energy and the Environment, Waste & Government Reform
No matter your position on enforcement of the US border, this report should demonstrate how ineffective government is, as a general principle, at executing the tasks it chooses to take on:
Several White House agencies charged with enforcing environmental laws are preventing thousands of Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border from disrupting illicit trafficking operations, according to a study by the investigative arm of Congress.
The report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that about 15 percent of the 26 Border Patrol stations in the southwestern region say the Interior Department and the Agriculture Department have prevented them from catching illegal aliens coming over the border.
…Under federal law, before Border Patrol agents can build roads or establish surveillance posts on this land, they must first receive permission from the land managing agencies. This process can take months while the land management agencies conduct tests to ensure the environmental safety of the land and its species, the GAO report said, resulting in the souring of actionable intelligence with the ranks of the Border Patrol.
Environmental law is a convoluted mess unparalleled in its ability to produce bureaucratic red-tape. We’re getting to the point where one can hardly take a step without first clearing it with four different agencies, conducting three environmental impact reports, defending against two lawsuits from environmental groups, and then after all that, learning that there’s some endangered partridge in a pear tree that will prevent you from proceeding. The weight of our excessive bureaucracy is dragging all aspects of government and society down.
Friday
September 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Liberty & Limited Government, Waste & Government Reform
I don’t typically prepare long thoughtful posts in anticipation for days such as this, and this year is no exception. Rather, I’d like to just take a moment to remind all the many bloggers and activists discussing the Constitution today to keep it in mind more than just once a year (I realize most in these groups do not need this reminder). Every day ought to be Constitution Day.
I also fully endorse this proposal:
House Republicans, marking the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, called Friday for members of Congress to adopt a proposal that would require every bill to include language citing its constitutional authority.
The idea was proposed by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., on Republicans’ “America Speaking Out” website — an online discussion board for legislative ideas. GOP leaders talked up the idea in honor of Constitution Day, being celebrated Friday.
I can think of no other reform both as simple and as powerful as this. If politicians actually had to go on record justifying the authority for their ideas, the entire policy discussion would inevitably change in the direction of less government.
Friday
August 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Waste & Government Reform
Play the Real or Fake game, where you guess if a government program is real or fake:
These people were surprised by the answers. I give my readers more credit.
Thursday
August 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Economics & the Economy, Waste & Government Reform
Expecting politicians to direct taxpayer dollars in a manner that “stimulates” the economy is foolish. Politicians will waste your money every time.
Monday
August 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Waste & Government Reform
Consider this a perverse form of the circle of life. It goes like this: politicians tax citizens – > politicians use taxes to bailout businesses -> businesses donate money to politicians.
Several companies that escaped financial failure two years ago through massive taxpayer-funded bailouts are spending millions of dollars to make donations to political causes and even some candidates’ campaigns.
General Motors, Chrysler and Citigroup are just three of the biggest bailout recipients who have continued to remain politically active, through their political action committees, federal lobbying or direct donations to the pet projects of lawmakers.
The potential public relations disaster for firms spending big dollars on political causes and federal lobbying after being extended a taxpayer lifeline has led some, such as AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to suspend their political activities until they pay the government back in full.
Friday
July 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Waste & Government Reform
I address this in a post at Big Government, entitled “NASA and the Last Fig Leaf of Big Government:”
…Now, with the ridiculous admission of NASA Administrator Charles Bolden that the so-called space agency’s priority is to boost Muslim self-esteem, this last fig leaf of big government has finally been removed. Believers in grand government solutions to all social problems are left naked for all to see.
The comment itself isn’t really the big story. Yes, it’s outrageous. It represents everything that is wrong with the PC-obsessed, America-bashing, leftist administration currently occupying the White House. But it’s merely the latest in a lengthy list of NASA disappointments. The real story is the slow, drawn-out transformation of NASA from a symbol of American exceptionalism into a national embarrassment.
Friday
March 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Waste & Government Reform
Another example of how efficiently government solves problems:
Cities, states and the federal government pay more to provide the homeless with short-term shelter and services than what it would cost to rent permanent housing, the U.S. government reports.
…Many communities probably don’t know that they are spending as much “to maintain a cot in a gymnasium with 100 other cots” as it would cost to rent an efficiency apartment, says Dennis Culhane, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies housing policies. “We are paying for a form of housing that is largely substandard, and we are paying as much, if not more, than standard conventional housing.”
And yet, some people seem to think that government provision of a good or service reduces costs.
Monday
March 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Waste & Government Reform
When the Republican House Caucus swore off earmarks recently, I noted that this didn’t necessarily mean all the Republicans behind such a move were taking a principled stance. Some probably are serious, but others are just capitalizing on the political environment.
And still others, like Senator Inhofe, have gone in the complete opposite direction:
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R.-Okla.), named by the National Journal as the senator with the most conservative voting record in 2009 and rated by the National Taxpayers Union as having the Senate’s fifth-best voting record on bills affecting taxing and spending, told CNSNews.com that he intends to lead a new effort to protect and defend the right of members of Congress to “earmark” appropriations and authorization bills.
Interesting. Let’s see what his argument is…
Inhofe said it is important to preserve earmarking not only to protect the constitutional prerogative of Congress to control where and how the federal government spends the taxpayers’ money, but also that it is particularly important for Congress to protect its authority in this area against encroachment by the Obama administration.
If Congress bans earmarks and thus restricts its own authority to direct federal programs, Inhofe said, “we would be delegating that back from Congress to President Obama to make those decisions. And I look at him, I look at his social engineering, I see the destructive forces in his administration that are tearing down every institution that has made America great, and I don’t want to put all this power in his hands.”
I find this argument wholly unconvincing. Earmarks are not the sole means by which Congress allocates funds. Senator Inhofe is confusing process for outcomes. Refusing to use the corrupt and unaccountable earmark process to disperse funds does not amount to a delegation of authority for spending from the legislative to the executive. It simply means that individual members of Congress cannot sneak in special carve-outs for district interests as a needle in the massive haystack that is typical Washington legislation. They will have to actually make the case for their spending, and Congress will have to use a more transparent approach to funding.
I think Senator Inhofe will find that, in the end, a less corrupt process will provide Congress with more authority, as it will help restore public faith in what is now one of, if not the single, most unpopular institution in America.
Friday
March 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Waste & Government Reform
Yesterday the House Republican Conference swore off earmarks by adopting a unilateral ban on all earmarks:
House Republicans approved a conference-wide moratorium on earmarks on Thursday, one day after a House committee enacted a ban on for-profit earmarks.
The Republicans’ moratorium is more extensive than the House Appropriations Committee’s ban in that it applies to all earmarks for all members of the caucus.
The moratorium was passed via a “strong” voice vote, according to Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who participated in the nearly two-hour-long conference meeting.
Republicans had discussed enacting a ban in the last Congress, but a vote never materialized.
Does this mean that Republicans, after years of profligate spending, have suddenly realized fiscal principles? Probably not.
The beauty of a competitive political system is that the public, by hounding politicians long enough, can eventually force them to make the right choice for the wrong reasons. Sure, some of the people involved have taken principled stands against earmarks consistently, but by and large Republicans just want back in power, and they’re doing what they have to do to court voters.
Just remember, they’ll betray these same principles the minute they get back into power if you let them. That’s why the public has to stay informed, engaged and outspoken.
I serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.