13
Aug
David Bernstein over at Volokh talks of an anecdote regarding earmarks. Basically a guy working for a defense contractor is hired to do nothing but spend money regardless of whether the product works or not. I have heard several stories like this over the years. Quite frankly, have done it to some degree with other funding sources. However, what David’s anecdote tells me is that this guy doesn’t have a clue how federal funding works, and David probably doesn’t either. It’s not complicated, but you have to look at it from the funding perspective, not the end-user. Here’s what happens.
When a “need” is generated, a lot of times it’s outside the scope of normal procedure. When this happens, it has to be added as a line item. It’s these line items that so many people generically refer to as “pork”. Now, the problem then becomes the burden of the person(s) who have to justify its existance. The way you do that in the federal arena is to spend money. If you spend NO money, then the justification for that line item no longer exists. However, contracting with the federal government can be quite SLOW. So, what happens is someone may decide something is needed right now, it will take a year at least to go through the budgeting process of Congress, and then IF the funding is received, could take another year to get it. In the meantime, the vendor is stuck HOPING this thing will get paid for for more than one year. Now, think of this way, someone tells you they want you to build them a very unqiue car. This car is so unique they will be the only one who will ever drive it. No one else would ever buy this car. However, they may not be able to pay you for it for two years, but they expect to see some progress on the car in the meantime. Do you build that car pronto and hope they’ll pay for it? Or, do you make pretty graphics and trinkets showing that person what this fabulous car will look like once they’ve paid for it. Sure, you’ve wasted money drawing pictures when you didn’t have to, but you kept the demand for that product alive. In the defense arena, those trinkets and stuff get a lot more expensive. But it’s the same process. Now, add to the fact the reverse financial process that is government. In the real world, a person makes something and tells the government how much it will cost for them to have it. In the federal world, they earmark X amount of money, and then wait for the receipts to come in to see how much it actually cost. Now, there’s just not too many people out there that if offered $1 million for their product, will turn that down and say that’s too much money for what I’ve done.
So, what you’ve got is a process that guarantees a lot of waste.
But, there’s another side to this story that neither David nor his anecdote consider. His acquaintance has a job and is contributing the local economy. His job makes sure others around him have jobs in the private sector. David’s anecdote IS the result of trickle-down economics. By the time the people he’s spending his money with are paying their taxes on his money, that money is making money for the feds. It’s how the government props up local economies during slow times, and slows down local economies when things get too economically hot.
So, this anecdote is simply an example of how one person fits into the the massive picture that is the federal economic policies. He really doesn’t need to feel so bad about his job now does he? If he could just make something that works right, he’d be the ideal anecdote of federal economic policy.
12
Aug
Seems the federal budget deficit dropped. Again. Seems all of a sudden hardly anyone really seems to care. Wasn’t that an issue last fall? Didn’t people totally ignore the numbers of a shrinking deficit and decide to buy the rhetoric that the budget was out of control? Why did they do that? Now, what’s getting ready to happen is this same speaker who ignored the shrinking deficit and sold a lot of people on the fact that it was not doing what it actually was doing is wanting to repeal most of the things that seemed to kick-start this process. She’s wanting to repeal tax incentives and increase taxes, along with spending for specific social programs. Will this undo the progress on the single issue that has dominated economic debate for the last decade? I dunno, I’m not an economist. What I do know is what is being done now seems to have diverted an economic melt-down started in 1999 and gotten things going in the direction these economists were saying we needed to be going in. What I don’t see is these same economists shouting with the same venom that messing with what’s working is a bad thing. What I also don’t see is this mentioned hardly anywhere in the media.
Wonder why that is?
Michael Chertoff created a buzz, and has done a weak job dealing with it. Basically he insinuated there’s a growing threat from Al Qaeda due to increased chatter. What he has not done is say there is an increased threat from Al Qaeda due to increased chatter. He upped that concern by saying it’s something like pre-9/11. That’s pretty serious. What he won’t do is say what we’re doing on a preemptive measure to deal with all that chatter.
I have an idea.
The general assumption ( yeah, I know what assuming does ), is that Osama Bin Laden is in northern Pakistan. The US military and Pakistani military both claim that area is dominated by tribal chiefs and such and are so dangerous even the US military can’t go in to deal with it. Along the same lines, the US and Russia have agreed to lower their nuclear arsenal levels by eliminating some outdated missiles and warheads. Well, I got a suggestion:
Let’s put all those unnecessary nukes right about here:
To be civilized about it, we create a bunch of chatter telling people who do not belong to Al Qaeda to get out first. Then, just turn those rocky craggy hills and mountains filled with Al Qaeda and other too-dangerous-for-civilized-man types into rocky craggy hills and mountains with no man at all. Nothing lost in doing that. Then, in a few years, we can try again and see if we can do better this time.
I’m welcome to hear the downside of this plan. But, at this time, I see none.
And, if nothing else, at the very least we’d be creating some chatter of our own other than the chatter we’re sending out now that we’re too scared to say anything that might deter them in the from place.
UPDATE: July 13, 2007: Ed Morrissey does an excellent post on this topic over at Captain’s Quarters. Not so much on the topic I made in this post, but the underlying causes of why I made this post that have been elaborated on in the comments. A must read if you have any interest in this topic ( Pakistan and Al Qaeda, not nukes. )
Got this from Citizens Against Government Waste:
Dear Representative,
The new House leadership promised to bring to Washington, the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history. The recent announcement by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) that earmarks will only appear in conference reports, and not in committee bills where they would be subject to challenges and amendments, shows that it is no longer business as usual in Washington it is far worse. Even the modest earmark reform passed in the 109th Congress that allowed members to challenge individual pork projects on the floor and require public disclosure of earmarks and their sponsors has been eviscerated.
Reforming the earmark process is NOT designing a procedure where members of Congress are denied the opportunity to debate the validity of an earmark and requesting a vote on whether it should remain in the legislation or not. Reforming the earmark process is NOT creating billion dollar ghost accounts where pork projects will be air-dropped in conference reports. Taxpayers have a right to understand where and how their tax dollars are being spent. In light of this, when you are considering the rules for each appropriations bill, a vote will be called to move the previous question. I ask that you vote no and allow earmark reform to be debated and voted on. By voting no, you will bring accountability to the earmark process. All votes on previous questions will be among the votes considered for CCAGWs 2007 Congressional Ratings.
Yeah buddy, I’m sure this will be all over CNN and MSNBC by tomorrow!
The National Association of Broadcasters has enlisted the recently re-minted lobbying firm of Bluewater Strategies in its quest to combat the proposed merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio.In a Wednesday filing at the Senate Office of Public Records, lobbyists Tim Kurth, Andrew Lundquist and George Nethercutt, former Republican representative from Washington, said they would represent the NAB on the merger and other issues.
I think this is a waste of time and money. I am completely ambivalent about this merger. XM radio, the service, is a niche thing. Not everyone wants XM radio, no one HAS to have it. And, with the advent of Wimax looming, I doubt anyone will even want it in five to ten years.
Here’s their message:
Letter to House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture
Dear Member,
Tomorrow you will have a hearing on the nations current rural broadband programs. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is responsible for the Rural Broadband Loan Program, which subsidizes broadband service in rural areas. RUS has spent more than $871 million to provide this service since 2003. A report released this month by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development entitled Broadband Statistics to December 2006 found that, while the U.S. has the most total broadband subscribers of the 30 countries it researched, our nation ranked 15th in broadband deployment penetration. On behalf of the more than 1.2 million members and supports of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I ask that you abolish the Rural Broadband Loan Program.
Besides the more than $30 million in broadband loans that have gone into default, the program has lost its focus on serving rural America. A 2005 audit conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General stated RUS has not exclusively served those rural communities most requiring Federal assistance to obtain access to broadband technologies. Because RUS definition of rural area is too broad to distinguish usefully between suburban and rural communities, the agency has issued over $103.4 million in grants and loans (nearly 12 percent of $895 million in total program funds) to communities near metropolitan areas Though the law does not explicitly forbid issuing loans to communities with preexisting service, we question whether the Rural Broadband Loan Program should be providing funds for competition in many of the communities served, while other communities go entirely without service.
Instead of allowing the free market to flourish, RUS has been subsidizing private companies to provide broadband in neighborhoods that already have this service. The government should no longer be allowed to waste the taxpayers money in bringing broadband to rural areas. This goal should be left entirely to the private technology sector. CCAGW asks that you support the abolition of the Rural Broadband Loan Program.
I am completely opposed to their opinion. Completely.
First of all, they liken the broadband services as basically all being the same. They are not. Not even close. Just because a community has dial-up does not mean they have the resources to provide adequate bandwidth to lure industry. A typical DSL connection will not support an internet based company. In order to do this, you have to have huge chunks of bandwidth. The local cable company or DSL company doesn’t need that type of overhead to provide typical home-based internet browsing. As such, although most of the rural United States may have broadband penetration as CAGW states, they are at a disadvantage to attracting industries to most third world nations at this time. Given the financial and technological resources available in the United States, that is quite embarrassing to me.
On a national security level, clustering all our communications assets in very localized urban areas is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. There is no need to all of our critical data to be in Washington, DC. Put some in rural Kentucky. Put some in rural Nebraska. Hell, put some in Kansas. Spreading those resources out makes things a lot more complicated for enemies.
Now, on a bigger picture that Tom Schatz is missing, some people feel that urban areas are the main problem in global warming. There’s a phenomena called urban warming named specifically for that effect. It’s not much of an issue in rural areas. I have pondered several times on my blogs that it seems to me that de-urbanizing the United States would do the US, and the world, good. We no longer need to cluster a million people in a small area thereby overwhelming the Earth’s ability to provide. We don’t need huge expanses of concrete and asphalt. We just need to spread out a little. We need to live amongst the trees so those trees can counter our CO2 emissions a little more efficiently. We just don’t need cities in this day and age and they are doing more harm than good. A big part of the reason we don’t need cities any more is because of remarkably improved communications. It is no longer expected of a person to meet face-to-face every single time you have an important message. We don’t have to hand deliver documents. We don’t have to assemble 100 people in the same room to coordinate a message. The internet has solved all those issues. So, to say broadband is not worth the government investing in it is ludicrous and extremely short-sighted.
CAGW does a lot of good things and tackles a lot of truly wasteful spending. However, in this case, they’re 100% wrong.
In 2003, the US destroyed many leftover flu shots. In 2004 thru 2006, near hysteria was experienced due to a shortage of flu shots. This year, the Feds may destroy 10,000,000 excess flu shots at the end of the flu season. The logic to doing that is fairly simple, they want to be sure they have the most up-to-date vaccine there is. Otherwise, they’d be wasting money on 110,000,000 vaccines instead of just 10,000,000. However, SOME people are complaining that the risk might be worth it. Vaccines don’t degrade terrribly quick and could offer SOME relief in years of shortages. Now, that’s all fine and good, but don’t ask ME to be the one to get an out-of-date flu shot when someone else gets the most up-to-date. So, I don’t really like how the Associated Press stating their headline to this topic as:
Government Wastes Millions of Flu Shots
The very last thing I think people want is the government to scrimp on getting vaccines and coming up short.
Bad Associated Press, bad.
Nancy Pelosi has assigned fifteen members to her new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. These folks are listed below with some of their other sponsored legislations:
| Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who will chair the committee |
|
| Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) |
|
| Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) |
|
| John B. Larson (D-Conn.) |
|
| Hilda L. Solis (D-Calif.) | None related to this issue. |
| Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.) |
|
| Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) |
|
| John Hall (D-N.Y.) |
|
| Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) |
|
| F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), the ranking minority member |
|
| John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) | None related to this issue. |
| Greg Walden (R-Ore.) | None related to this issue. |
| John Sullivan (R-Okla.) | None related to this issue. |
| Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) |
|
| Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.) |
|
Basically, this group of people has a CURRENT history of non-ecological issues. Three bills directly show an interest in this issue. More bills show a pandering to those opposing the war in Iraq. More importantly, one bill shows an antagonism to spending any money on anything, one shows a preference to increase regulations and therefore restrict the development of alternative energy ( nuclear ), and two are more concerned about race than energy.
Yeah buddy, this bunch is going to get a lot done in the real world.
6
Mar
Earlier this year, several reports started circulating once again about the end of the world as we know it. This time via an asteroid that has an incredibly remote chance of hitting Earth somewhere around 2036. This was fairly immediately after Congress told NASA in 2005 it needed to spend more time finding what is going to hit Earth and do something about it.
Today, NASA gave their response to Congress’s directive. It was a simple answer. Something to the effect of, “we won’t do it until you pay for it”. Now, this is where it gets fun to me.
- IF Congress balks, and an asteroid does end the world as we know it, Congress will look pretty bad. Granted, that would be for a farely short period of time since people probably wouldn’t be haggling too much over the politics of what happened AFTER the world ended as we know it.
- IF Congress does fund it, and nothing happens in 29 years, Congress will get blamed for blowing a billion dollars on pork-barrel pie-in-the-sky projects that benefit only one Congressman and two Senators.
What to do? If I were in Congress, I’d nix the funding since facing the consequences of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and CAGW would be a lot shorter. We don’t want to waste any more money than we have to. Right?
( Of course, we could ask other countries to chip in and help with this. )
Bet you didn’t know that yesterday was the National Methamphetamine Awareness Day? That was the day the country, according to this label, was to become aware of Meth.
Now, I know what the intent was. But, as usual, the feds are absolultely clueless to what they are trying to do. Do we really want more people to become "aware" of Meth?
Or, should we have had a national "Meth Kills" day?
Keeping the message simple is good. Making the message clear and accurate is much better.
I hope Representatives Leonard Boswell, Rick Larsen and Chris Cannon read my opinions here. I’m serious.
