New at Reason

Jacob Sullum ponders whether pork-loving senators use the same Constitution as the rest of us.

Comments

Swillfredo Pareto | April 5, 2006, 10:04am | #

The framers of the Constitution clearly stated that Congress...should allocate funding for the various functions of government.

Where is it clearly stated that Congress shall grease up 98% of its constituents, buttfuck us, then send the Santorum to the remaining 2% who play the game? Is there anything in there that says that building bridges in Alaska is a function of the federal government?

Ending the practice of earmarking would transfer massive funding authority to the President and the federal agencies in defiance of the Constitution.

That is one way of looking at it. A remarkably disgusting way, but one perspective no doubt. One other way would be to consider that the Constitution empowers neither of them to spend $2.7 trillion and that they have an oath to leave it in the pockets of the people who earn it.

Grant Gould | April 5, 2006, 10:29am | #

Swillfredo asks: Where is it clearly stated that Congress shall grease up 98% of its constituents, buttfuck us, then send the Santorum to the remaining 2% who play the game?

That would be the bit that say, "We, the People..." In the Constitution as anywhere else, anyone who can turn the mob from "they" to "we" gets a free license to screw anybody. It's only a question of how long they take to get around to it.

theCoach | April 5, 2006, 10:52am | #

Why the obsession with pork? It is such a tiny part of the budget.

If you want to reduce the government, focus on reducing defense, Social Security, Medicare and Interest payments.

Keep in mind that empirical evidence suggests that Social Security and government health care are more efficient than their private sector alternatives.

Moving earmarking into a coherent funding process makes sense, but there is, especially on libertarian sites, an oversized concern given the scope.

thoreau | April 5, 2006, 10:55am | #

Coach-

Tacking on pork to a bill is often used to get it to pass. Pork greases the wheels for a lot of other things.

Evan | April 5, 2006, 10:57am | #

"But the two self-described "fiscal conservatives" defend what they call "earnest earmarks" that direct federal dollars to legislators’ states and districts. They proudly cite earmarks they obtained that "built new wastewater infrastructure in Bonners Ferry, supported jobs at the Idaho National Laboratory, improved housing for families at Mountain Home Air Force Base, and expanded course offerings at Boise State University."

"Earnest"? Please. If they were at all serious about fiscal conservatism and "earnesty", they would propose a law that would eliminate earmarks, and lower the federal taxes congruently (for example, if the total amount of state-destined earmarks was $25 billion, then lower federal taxes by that much). Then, the president wouldn't have any extra money to spend on the states without cutting federal programs. As a result, to reach some sort of equilibrium, the states would be able to raise state taxes. This would result in money from state residents directly paying for the stuff that they want. More accountability. More direct connection to the money. No more of my money going to pay for expanded courses at Boise State.

Does anyone think this is feasible?

Evan | April 5, 2006, 11:02am | #

"Keep in mind that empirical evidence suggests that Social Security and government health care are more efficient than their private sector alternatives."

What "empirical evidence" suggests that nationalized government healthcare would be more efficient than private? Take a look at the places where nationalized healthcare is already in place. You have to wait weeks to see a doctor, and you have no choice in which doctor to see, so there's no real incentive for them to treat their patients with extra care.

Maybe on paper, abstractly, it might look more "efficient"...but, personally, I don't see Canadia's stupid system as being very "efficient" at all. Requiring private health insurance might be a way to meet in the middle, given the problems with ER nonpayers.

R C Dean | April 5, 2006, 11:18am | #

Ending the practice of earmarking would transfer massive funding authority to the President and the federal agencies in defiance of the Constitution.

Actually, what it might do is reduce pork. If the legislators can't guarantee that their little slice of pork will make it home because the President might redirect it, they might not vote for it.

And what we are actually talking about here is which branch controls spending that neither branch has the Constitutional authority to engage in in the first place. Which branch abuses extra-Constitutional spending is less interesting to me than stopping it altogether.

Evan | April 5, 2006, 11:22am | #

RC Dean:

Exactly. If we can prohibit Congress from spending federal money on pet crap for the states, then we can certainly prohibit the president from doing so as well.

Swillfredo Pareto | April 5, 2006, 11:41am | #

Keep in mind that empirical evidence suggests that Social Security and government health care are more efficient than their private sector alternatives.

Source(s) please? I just got my Social Security statement the other day and I categorically reject that supposition. Counting my employer's contributions (which I do), and earning a prevailing equity market return were I to have been allowed to keep and invest my "contributions", I would already have more than I would need to purchase the full suite of Social Security benefits (death benefit, survivors benefit, a comparable annuity and a disability policy) in the private market. There is only one little problem: I have another 26 years to continue contributing, with no guarantee that my premium does not go up, that my benefits do not go down, that I get to collect at 67, and that I am not means tested. As for Medicaid, it is even worse.

Evan | April 5, 2006, 11:48am | #

Swillfredo:

I think, implicit in Coach's assertion that it is more "efficient" (and, implicit in his definition of "efficient" as well) is the fact that the results are supposedly better for society as a whole. In other words, wealth redistribution. Yes, someone like you and me, who make enough money to afford to purchase private social security insurance, would be better off in the free market---but, again, implicit in his assertion is the fact that to those who make barely enough money to get by, the extra few hundred bucks a year they'd get back if social security & medicare weren't deducted from their paychecks would not be enough to purchase anything comparable to what they get from the gubmint. When you redistribute the wealth, the lowest earners are always better off.

I'm not saying I support this wealth residtribution scheme, just telling you what I think he's referring to when he says "efficient".

JD | April 5, 2006, 11:51am | #

This reminds me of a newsletter I got the other day from Congressman Charles Rangel. In it, he stated that his belief was that the purpose of government was to "aid the less fortunate". (Probably not his exact words.) In one sense I'm glad that he has some idea of what government is for (other than keeping himself in office forever), but I wonder if he's even aware that his philosophy runs directly counter to the one expressed in the Constitution, our other founding documents, and the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

Rangel is just an odious, disgusting person, anyway. He's the ass who suggested that we reinstate the draft for people up to 42 years old and then voted against his own bill, and he's never had a negative thing to say about Fidel Castro.

Swillfredo Pareto | April 5, 2006, 11:54am | #

Evan, I'll buy that is what he means, although by no stretch are transfer payments "efficient". More to the point, if Social Security really is welfare then stop selling it as otherwise. It is supposed to be an earned benefit. Why the fuck attach my SOCIAL SECURITY number to the accrual if it is knowingly going to be redistributed to others?

R C Dean | April 5, 2006, 1:06pm | #

I think, implicit in Coach's assertion that it is more "efficient" (and, implicit in his definition of "efficient" as well) is the fact that the results are supposedly better for society as a whole. In other words, wealth redistribution.

In other words, not "efficiency" at all, but "equity."

Kwix | April 5, 2006, 1:52pm | #

What I love is that 'earmarking' (very animal husbandry sounding term), pork and lobbying go well together even at the State level.

From http://www.ktva.com/local/ci_3669072

Alaska Senate Keeps ANWR Lobbying Money in Bill
Associated Press April 3, 2006
A legislative conference committee Monday kept 3.7 million dollars in a spending bill for lobbying to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
The appropriation includes three million dollars for an Oregon public relations company called Pac/West Communications. The firm would use the money for marketing campaigns in individual congressional districts and put pressure on lawmakers who are against drilling in the refuge.
The other 750-thousand dollars would go to Arctic Power, the state's ANWR lobbyist since 1992, to work within Washington's Beltway and try to persuade ANWR holdouts to vote for the measure this year.

Now if this isn't the penultimate of wealth re-distribution. The Feds forceably take my money via the IRS, give it to the State via earmarks and pork, the State then spends it on a private company who's job, if done correctly, will result in further money being forceably removed from my pocket.