Topic: Government and Politics

Earmarks

As annual spending bills wind their way through Congress this year, there are ongoing battles over earmarked funding for members’ pet projects.

To get a sense of what the battle is about, check out this newly released list of earmarks in the House Interior appropriations bill.

People scour such lists looking for embarrassing bridges to nowhere in Alaska and indoor rainforests in Iowa.

But the real issue is federalism, not earmarks. Many of these funding projects are not federal responsibilities at all. Look at all the local sewer facilities on the list under the EPA. Why can’t Seattle, Buffalo, and other cities fund their own toilet pipes?

Of course, they can. But the idea of federalism has disappeared from public discussion in an orgy of state and local lobbying of compliant Washington politicians. For history and analysis of this issue, see here

(Oh, wait a minute, take that back — my guy Jim Moran (D-VA) scored $700K to clean up Four Mile Run beside where I live in Northern Virginia. Nice job Jim! You’ve got my vote!) 

A Reason to be Against Donor Disclosure

Several interest groups (Public Citizen, Common Cause and Democracy 21) have lately been trying to persuade Congress to set up an independent ethics panel to police members. They also want Congress to allow outside groups (like themselves) to file ethics complaints with the panel.

A House task force now proposes to grant them their wish. However, the task force also requires any group filing an ethics complaint to the new panel to disclose its donors.

The interest groups are not amused. Craig Holman of Public Citizen told The Hill:  “you can imagine how upsetting this is to the donor community.”

I do not support an independent ethics panel. However, Holman is correct here. A group that filed a complaint would open its donors to retribution by the named member or by his party or allies in Congress. Disclosure might even discourage donors from supporting these interest groups, thereby burdening the contributors’ rights to association and speech.

In fact, I think we should extend Craig Holman’s point to other donors. People who contribute to the campaigns of challengers to incumbents should also not have to disclose their donations. After all, their contribution (like an ethics complaint) threatens a member of Congress and might well bring about retribution.

Sauces, gooses, ganders. If disclosure threatens the interests of the donors to certain influential interest groups that might irritate people in power, surely it also threatens those who contribute to challengers to incumbents. These donors, like your average Common Cause contributor, should also be free of the burden of revealing their political activities to those who might do them harm.

Build a Wall

The prize for the best policy idea of the week goes to Steve Ahlenius, the president of the Chamber of Commerce in McAllen, Texas on the Mexican border.  As reported in The Monitor, a local newspaper:

McAllen, Texas calls for a wall around Washington, D.C.

We feel the need to protect ourselves from bad legislation, bad ideas, and a waste of taxpayer money.

A wall around their homes and businesses will give the legislators and Washington bureaucrats a better understanding of what kind of message this action will send.

Let’s see if they decide to climb over it, tunnel under it, or walk around it.

My 56-Word Review of SiCKO

SiCKO was a very funny film, and I praise Michael Moore for starting the conversation and pointing out many horrors of the U.S. health care system. 

But from a policy standpoint – and I say this more in sadness than in anger – SiCKO was so breathtaking a specimen of ignorant propaganda that it would make Pravda blush.

The Suburban Spending Machine

A few weeks ago I noted that the $3.3 billion county budget in one of Washington’s wealthy suburbs, Fairfax County, had a bit of fat in it, such as manners classes for kids. This weekend the Washington Post reported that ”a $2 million [swimming pool] renovation [in neighboring Arlington County], dedicated yesterday, is part of the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority’s effort to woo residents from the increasing number of pools run by homeowners associations, officials said.”

Maybe if the private sector is providing a service, taxpayers could be relieved of that burden. If the argument is that government-run pools are intended to serve poor children who don’t have access to private pools, we could debate that policy. But the Post article makes clear that Northern Virginia government officials see themselves as competing in a “market” to attract customers from the pools provided by homeowners associations. And that seems a strikingly inappropriate mission for government.

Squelching Dissent

The New York Times has compiled a mammoth list of federal subsidies (or “earmarks”) to thousands of religious organizations.

Public discussions of such giveaways usually revolve around the First Amendment and also the possible damage that subsidies do to the strength, diversity, and integrity of  religious institutions themselves.

As a fiscal wonk, a bigger concern for me is that the flow of federal money to thousands of otherwise independent organizations squelches sources of dissent for government policies.

Let’s say you belong to the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Salvation Army, the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Kentucky, or any of the other groups on the NYT list. Will you not be more hesitant to speak out about the War in Iraq, the immigration bill, civil liberties issues, or other policies because you don’t want to put your group’s federal funding put in jeopardy? Won’t you learn to take a more favorable view of big government over time as your group gets used to the steady stream of “free” money from Washington? 

I think earmarks such as ”$100,000 to the National Museum of American Jewish History, Philadelphia” are outrageous. Religious orders aren’t even responsible for their own history anymore? In my view, Jewish leaders ought to be ashamed of themselves for grabbing taxpayer money for such a project.

For more on earmarks, faith-based giveaways, and federalism, see http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8246