BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

government spending Archive

Thursday

21

February 2013

0

COMMENTS

We’re All Gonna Die! Special Sequestration Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government

This is a special edition of the We’re All Gonna Die! series, in that for the first time it won’t be about Global Warming climate change. As it turns out, enviro-radicals hold no monopoly on doom-mongering rhetoric.

President Obama’s hysterical wailing about miniscule sequestration “cuts” (read: government growing at slightly less than assumed levels) has reached a fever pitch worthy of this illustrious series. Keep in mind that the sequester was Obama’s idea, and he has previously promised to veto attempts to undo it. But that hasn’t stopped the Presidential meltdown:

What, according to Obama, would the sequester mean?

It would, according to the president on Tuesday, “jeopardize military readiness … eviscerate job creating investments in education and energy and research … emergency responders … border agents … FBI agents…federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go … air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks … more delays at airports across the country … thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off … tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care … hundreds of thousands will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings,” and the list went on.

In fairness, Obama is not the first Democrat to flip his lid at the thought of even slightly slowing down the rapid growth of government spending. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi once declared that she was trying to “save life on this planet as we know it” from a Republican budget. Al Sharpton hyperventilated that the Balanced Budget Amendment was an “extreme piece of Republican mean-spiritedness” that would “destroy up to 15 million jobs.” And just a few days ago, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee announced that the gigantic federal government is “at the bone, almost,” before warning that “across-the-board cuts will literally destroy us.”

So there you have it. Tax and spend, or destroy us all!

http://leftofthemark.com/quote/al-sharpton-balanced-budget-amendment-is-extreme-mean-spiritedness

Friday

13

April 2012

1

COMMENTS

How Much of Your Money Does it Take to "Translocate" a Bush?

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Waste & Government Reform

I wrote recently about a situation that demonstrated how much more inefficient and wasteful is government compared to private action. Another story, this time out of big government mecca San Francisco, provides further evidence of government waste:

The government spent at least $205,075 in 2010 to “translocate” a single bush in San Francisco that stood in the path of a $1.045-billion highway-renovation project that was partially funded by the economic stimulus legislation President Barack Obama signed in 2009.

…“The translocation of the Arctostaphylos franciscana plant to an active native plant management area of the Presidio was accomplished, apparently successfully and according to plan, on January 23, 2010,” the Interior Department reported.

The bush—a Franciscan manzanita—was a specimen of a commercially cultivated species of shrub that can be purchased from nurseries for as little as $15.98 per plant. The particular plant in question, however, was discovered in the midst of the City of San Francisco, in the median strip of a highway, and was deemed to be the last example of the species in the “wild.”

Prior to the discovery of this “wild” Franciscan manzanita, the plant had been considered extinct for as long as 62 years–extinct, that is, outside of people’s yards and botanical gardens.

Before that, the bush had grown in the “wild” in two cemeteries in San Francisco’s Richmond District as well as on Mount Davidson, a peak in the middle of San Francisco. The Department of Interior said that there had also been “unconfirmed sightings” of the shrub in the city’s Haight-Ashbury District—an area that became famous in the late 1960s as the epicenter of the psychedelic hippie movement.

I feel like the country has gone completely mad. Step back and think about this for a moment. Our government is running trillion dollars deficits, we are piling unsustainable debts upon future generations, and are barreling down a path that without a sharp correction will eventually see us turn into Greece. Yet we’re willing to spend $200,000 not just to move a freaking plant, but to move one that isn’t actually rare in any real sense of the word, and even if it was, so what? It’s a plant, people! Are we insane, or am I?

First of all, what in the world were they doing to move the plant that could possibly cost that much? Second, it is ludicrous to make a distinction between “wild” plants and…what, domesticated plants? Plants held in captivity?

A plant is a plant is a plant. Whether the initial seed wafted unobstructed on the wind until reaching its resting place and sprouting, or was consciously planted by a human being makes no material difference regarding the nature of the plant. The plant does not experience life differently depending on whether it is “wild” or not.

Finally, who says “translocate”? Such self-aggrandizing bureaucratese is an indication that the author understands what the government is doing is both shamefully unimportant and worth neither their time nor the taxpayers money. The bureaucrats involved are merely trying to obscure the issue and deceive the people and, perhaps even more so, themselves. Nobody likes to feel like what they do is unimportant, so just imagine how it must feel to write a report about spending boatloads of taxpayer dollars to move a shrub. Of course, that’s nothing like how the rest of us are forced to feel in paying for such nonsense.

Tuesday

24

January 2012

0

COMMENTS

Wednesday

21

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

United Judicial Fiefdoms of America

Written by , Posted in Education, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

It is hard to square the American ideal of representative government with this sort of news:

Denver District Court Judge Sheila Rappaport ruled in Lobato v. Colorado that the state’s funding system fails to provide the “thorough and uniform” education required by the constitution. She called the system “significantly underfunded,” even though Colorado now spends $3.2 billion, or about 45 percent of the $7 billion annual state budget, on K-12 education.

“There is not enough money in the system to permit school districts across the state to properly implement standards-based education and to meet the requirements of state law and regulation,” Judge Rappaport wrote in her Dec. 9 opinion. “There is not one school district that is sufficiently funded. This is an obvious hallmark of an irrational system.”

That’s funny, as I consider a singular, unelected judge determining it is her sole responsibility to set budget priorities as the hallmark of an irrational system.

I have 3 fundamental problems with this ruling: 1) It’s not the judge’s place to make such a determination, 2) Colorado education spending per pupil is in fact increasing, and 3) more spending has not worked in the past to improve education, and it won’t today.

While it can certainly be said that it was stupid of Colorado to include something as vague and meaningless in their Constitution as a requirement for “thorough and uniform” education, the responsibility to fulfill such a requirement is still necessarily legislative. Under what authority does this local judge imagine that her policy preferences outweigh those as expressed by the voters of Colorado, whom have already voiced their preferences for the spending of scarce resources? Consider the madness that would erupt if her petulant demands were actually carried out, and then tell me again what part of all this is irrational:

How much would it take to fund the state education system? The judge declined to name a dollar figure, but in her 189-page decision she cited a study introduced by the plaintiffs that called for an additional $2 billion to $4 billion per year.

That would require the state to devote 89 percent of the general fund to K-12 education, according to estimates by the attorney general’s office…

“I suppose you could basically shut down every other discretionary thing in the state budget,” said Independence Institute research director David Kopel on Friday’s edition of “Colorado Inside Out” on Colorado Public Television.

“We could get rid of higher education, get rid of the Colorado state patrol, get rid of every social service program we have in order to throw money into this sinkhole that Judge Rappaport pretends is mandatory under the constitution,” he said.

Unfortunately, this sort spontaneous judicial excitement is becoming increasingly common, hence the title of this post.

As you can see below, Colorado’s education spending, like that of the rest of the country, has been increasing steadily over time, even after being adjusted for inflation.

Will additional increases in spending actually help improve the quality of education? If history is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding no:

If this judge were actually serious about accomplishing her goal, she’d order the immediate abolition of the government’s monopoly on education.

Tuesday

22

November 2011

0

COMMENTS

Super Committee Succeeds in Not Raising Taxes

Written by , Posted in Big Government

Where others see failure, I see success. Limited success, for sure, but $1.2 trillion in “cuts” with no tax increases is better than any of the “grand bargains” that kept being floated to the media.

Now let’s put this sad business behind us and get back to openly debating where real savings can be found and cut.

UPDATE: As a further illustration of what I mean when I put “cuts” in quotation marks, I provide this chart from Veronique de Rugy:

Tuesday

13

September 2011

1

COMMENTS

Saturday

13

August 2011

1

COMMENTS

False Blame in London

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

A growing chorus of clacking commentators has determined the cause of the London riots to be something called “austerity.” This menace is apparently to blame for the whole sordid affair. As an incarnation of pure evil, “austerity” has crept into the homes of hapless Londoners, snatching their rightful belongings – and sometimes even their futures – right out from under them. Quite understandably this has agitated the poor chaps, sending them into a mindless, criminal rage.

Poppycock!

There are two significant problems with this lazy, statist narrative. The first is  simple: there has been no austerity. Here’s government spending in the UK in recent years (the last few years are projections):
So 2011 will see ever so slightly less spending as a percentage of GDP than 2010, not even dropping a full percentage point. Are we really to believe that such a minuscule shift could spark such an eruption of righteous anger?

But these aren’t even actually cuts. Spending increased from 2010 to 2011, and in this chart it does so each year thereafter. Simply holding spending growth to less than the growth of the economy allows the total burden of government to fall without actually making cuts. The statists nevertheless label such increase as “cuts” because they operate in a fantasy land where expected increases are the norm, and any increase less than they desire is therefore a cut. We see the same dishonesty right here in America, as evidenced by the recent debt ceiling debate.

Getting back to the issue. By 2015 spending as a percentage of the British economy is expected to be no lower than it was as recently as 2008. It will be higher, in fact. Is that really a rioting offense? How can anyone honestly claim massive social unrest based on such figures? It defies reason.

But the second problem with the blame austerity crowd’s logic is that even if there were significant budget cuts, they would still not be to blame. Austerity is no more to blame for the aftermath of runaway government spending and rampant dependency than is sobriety responsible for the addict suffering withdrawal. Dependent British citizens desperately lashing out for their next government fix would have only themselves and their enablers to blame, not the loved ones who finally stepped in and called an intervention.

No matter how you slice it, the statist argument falls flat. So why is it even being made in the first place? Well, that’s easy. It’s pre-emptive. The welfare state is falling out of favor as it slowly collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. Enamored with the power of big government, statists are nevertheless in denial to this fact, but still they feel the public pressure mounting against them and are unwilling to let go of their grip on authority. So now they’re conjuring a boogey-man to scare the peasants back into line. You can’t cut our budgets and our power, they’ll say, just look at what it’s done in London!

“Poppycock!” we’ll reply.

Thursday

7

July 2011

0

COMMENTS

Don't Be Fooled

Written by , Posted in Big Government

When big government types talk “spending cuts,” they don’t actually mean cutting spending. Here is a superb 1-minute explanation of what they really mean:

Sunday

5

June 2011

0

COMMENTS

Stuck on Stimulating Stupid

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Economics & the Economy

For modern day Keynesians, there’s really only one possible solution to fit every set of economic facts – spend more of other people’s money on politically favored projects. It hasn’t worked too well so far.

Image courtesy of Dan Mitchell

Despite the obvious failures of government spending to boost the economy, Keynesian politicians are banging the drums for yet more of the same:

House Democrats this week have amplified their calls for new spending on infrastructure and other federal projects in the face of May’s discouraging job-creation figures.

…”The American people, while concerned about the deficit, place much more emphasis on job creation, and they see a role for the government,” Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told The Hill. “A fast injection of job stimulus on the public side would help tremendously. … It [the job report] helps our argument about investment.”

I’m an optimist at heart, but sometimes even I wonder if fighting this kind of stupidity is a pointless battle. It really doesn’t matter what the reality is or what the facts show, these people will always call for more government as the solution. “We have a massive spending problem? Who cares, just spend more!”

Cue Joe Biden explaining that we have to spend money to stop from going bankrupt.

Wednesday

4

May 2011

0

COMMENTS

Even Facts Can ‘Lie’

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

I stumbled across an info graphic comparing military expenditures versus that of foreign aid, making the argument that people drastically overestimate how much is spent on foreign aid. But before I get to that, here’s the infographic:

It’s hard to read at this size (full image here), but I think you can get the drift. The U.S. spends less than other nations on “aid” and more on the “military” (used interchangably with defense) both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP.

All of the information presented here is factual. But this is an excellent illustration of how facts, without correct understanding and context, can be misleading. For instance, the image explains that U.S. foreign aid spending includes “disaster relief, long term poverty reduction, hunger prevention, and human rights programs.” That’s all well and good, but our foreign aid spending also includes one very important category not mentioned: military spending. That’s right, much of what we spend on the military is actually foreign aid, as it is spent on the defense of other countries.

The reason France, the UK, Japan, and Germany, among others, can spend so much less on defense is because we are spending it for them. Those troops we keep in their countries aren’t defending our borders, they are defending theirs. Sure, we get some marginal benefits (sometimes), but they get to take what they would spend on defense and spend it on social welfare. We are subsidizing their welfare states with our defense spending. If that isn’t foreign aid then I don’t know what is.

I think many Americans asked how much we spend on foreign aid take this fact into account. They understand that, yes, defending countries for them is aiding them. Don’t get me wrong, even if the graphic was adjusted to account for military spending that is actually aid and not primarily defensive, it’s probably still true that the public grossly overestimates what we spend on foreign aid. It would also still be true that reducing foreign aid would have little fiscal impact compared to the growing entitlement problem. But there are other good reasons to rethink foreign aid, such as whether or not most of it is even effective. It’s also a good reason to rethink our allocation of military spending and  whether it is being put to good use, or in some cases could even be done without.