I was walking my dog after responding to the last Comment posted by my friend in our previous thread, and, boy, I was mad at him. I was mad because he fell in that very trap of declarations and expletives that we agreed not to fall into when we started this blog. I admit, I did push him slightly in this direction, but it did not make me fill better. Eventually, however, my thoughts wondered back toward the topic of our last discussion: 10th amendment and limitations of powers of federal government. This is when I realized that most of what I wrote in last several Comments was complete nonsense. No special Congressional Committee would help to protect states' rights. For several minutes I pondered an approach of the Tenthers movement that is bent on giving states the powers to nullify or declare unconstitutional federal laws. I, however, did not see how this idea can produce anything practically positive unless federal government itself is ready not to enforce the law being nullified, how it happened with California marijuana law. And then it occurred to me that I looked at this problem in a completely wrong way. I realized something, which is, of course, an obvious thing for real scholars of American Constitution, and which I also knew about, but somehow did not apply to the issue under discussion. The organization of the federal government with its two chambers was designed in this way precisely in order to prevent the encroachment of federal government on state rights. While the Congress is the instrument of federal legislative process, the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the states. It is the Senators who are supposed to make sure that federal laws do not violate state rights.
This does not work, however, and the question is why? The answer seems to me quite simple and can be formulated in one word: money. It has happened in the course of history that federal budget has been steadily growing and the power of the federal government grew with it. Eventually, it enabled the government to buy even more power through bribes establishing a self-supporting vicious circle. I am not talking about bribing the senators or state legislators, because mostly it is the people, the voters and taxpayers, who were bribed and corrupted. As a result, instead of ensuring state's sovereignty and ability of its citizens to live freely and take responsibility for themselves, senators started bringing home pork, and were rewarded by the electorate for bringing in more and more federal money in the form of federal funded projects, federal financing of state projects, direct federal payments to states' budgets and such. Unless this situation is changed nothing can restore state's and people's sovereignty. The only way to change these ongoing bribery is to completely eliminate a possibility of pork barrel legislation, which would probably require reforming the structure of taxes. Thus I would suggest that all organizations and groups concerned with unlimited growth of federal power: Tenthers, Nullifiers, and others would direct there efforts in one direction - getting rid of pork. Once senators stop being elected on the basis of who is the best bread winner for the state, their job will be judged on the basis if they ensure that states have enough economic freedom to develop their own economies. Of course, there always will be some federal jobs and projects, but as their number will be severely diminished, they will stop playing such a large role in elections.
I understand that all what I wrote here so far is a declaration, but I suggest treating it as a hypothesis. The next step would be to look at the history of "pork" in American politics and check if there are data demonstrating correlations between electability of senators and their earmark activity.
I have to admit that I was a little alarmed when I read the first lines of this post and realized that the friend in question was actually me (my first reaction--somebody else posted a comment?). I certainly don't recall using any expletives or making declarations. I thought I was making a serious point, which actually relates to the comments above. But perhaps, in my desire for brevity, I may not have expressed myself clearly enough. But whatever the problem, Lev seems to have gotten over it and provided some interesting food for thought. It's nice to get to the meat of problem--bring home the bacon so to speak.
ReplyDeleteIn the previous thread, I was pointing out the irony of the conservative/tea party/libertarian position. They profess such deep veneration for the constitution, yet they seem to disdain the political order than grew out of it. After all what is the constitution if not the blueprint of our currently existing political system? Yet conservatives seem to think that Government (the living embodiment of the constitution) is the greatest problem facing the American people. What we hear most of all is that Government is too big. So I'd like to ask a rhetorical question -- what's so great about small government?
Here's the challenge--how do you limit the size of government without weakening the power of the state? I can give you examples of countries with small governments -- Somalia, Congo, Pakistan, Iraq -- but do we really want to aspire to this? Can you give an example of a state--either contemporary or historical--that managed successfully to limit the size of its government while remaining strong, stable and internationally recognized as a major power?
But what does this all have to do with the issue of pork? My response -- pork is nutritious and helps us stay strong. I'm not just talking about military strength, by the way, although a great deal of spending that could be considered pork (i.e. Senators and Congressmen lobby for expenditures that benefit their particular districts)does go in that direction. I'm also talking about the strength of our infrastructure, our economy and above all, our human potential. America can only be strong when we have a healthy, prosperous, educated population that excels in innovation and initiative. I certainly wouldn't deny that the private sector plays an important role in developing this potential, but private resources can never pull all the weight--especially when there are anxious shareholders looking for a return on their investment and greedy CEOs clamoring for another billion dollar bonus. Only when the state acts in a coordinated conscious way to invest in human potential, can strength be maintained.
ReplyDeleteI've looked at some of the lists of "wasteful" pork-barrel spending and frankly they speak more to the ignorance and narrow mindedness of the people who compile them than any particularly egregious spending. Nothing is easier than taking a project in a field about which you know nothing and holding it up for ridicule. $250,000 on grape genetics in New York -- outrageous! $100,000 on a fruit fly lab in California -- insane! $XXX,XXX on quantum wells in Queens -- disgraceful! Well... actually this is what we call fundamental scientific research and it is essential to the health and well-being of the nation. I would make a similar argument about funding for historical preservation, education, infrastructure and so forth. Sure, I wouldn't deny that some poorly conceived and wasteful projects do slip through, but this is much rarer than the blowhards would have us think. Anyone who has applied for a Federal grant will attest to the fact that the standards are about as rigorous as they come.
There is a legitimate concern about the process of 'pork' -- namely the so-called earmarks when congressmen write specific allocations directly into legislation. bypassing the regular budget process. Obama has come out against this, and I believe that the level of earmark spending has gone down since he became president. But there's nothing illegal about this and it's very much a bipartisan practice--everyone has a nose in the trough.
I realize all this discussion doesn't really address the issues of how the Senate can better defend the rights of the states. To be honest, I don't really understand how this would work? Is it that the Senators don't defend the rights of the states because they are too worried about getting reelected? This is not, by any chance, connected with one of the wackier tea party ideas in my view -- the call to repeal the 17th Amendment? Let's talk more.
OK, may be I overreacted to expressions like "veneration", "disdain", "wackier ... ideas", and such, which seems to me too emotionally charged for the kind of discussion I thought we were having. But I understand that without emotional component, this discussion might become too dull. Still, I find the main thrill in exploring ideas than in expressing emotions. But, I did get over it. What I cannot get over is your reverence for government, which (here goes my portion of emotional outburst) if you think about it, is just the bunch of underpaid bureaucrats looking for semi-legal ways to improve their financial situation. More substantial response will follow later in the form of separate posts as there are two many things in your post which I want to tear apart. Emotionally speaking. And don’t, I did not know anything about 17th amendment when I wrote that post. However, I do not see anything wackier about attempts to repeal it. After all, it was only passed in 1904 or something like that and the country lived without it for more than 100 years. I think that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue, so why not to let the political process to take its course? It happened once, may be the country is ready to flip on this issue? Now, let me clarify what I meant when I connected the electability of the senators with pork. It is not the problem that they are worried about being elected. This is exactly what they need to be worried about. The problem is in the type of behavior, which voters reward these days. My supposition was that the senators are being rewarded by bringing more cash to the state budget even if it means less rights and freedom for the voters rather than for supporting states’ rights to set up their own economical and other priorities as it is granted to them by Constitution.
ReplyDeleteOK, a few things in your Comment are relevant to the topic of this thread, so I will address them here. First is the definition of pork barrel spending. You make it look like I classify all federal spending as "pork", which is, of course, not the case. (I am, by the way, flattered that you still remember the old topic of my research.) Well, let's clarify. Obviously, I do not see anything wrong with federal government supporting fundamental research and there is nothing outrageous in studying fruit flies or quantum wells for that matter. The devil is, as always, in details of how this support was provided. Normally, federal government supports fundamental science by appropriating certain amount of money for NSF, NASA, DOE and some other agencies. It is important that these moneys are being reserved for fundamental research without government explicitly knowing who exactly (what scientist, university or state) will benefit from this moneys. Everybody participates in a competition and best teams, presumably, win the prise. Obviously, I have no problems with this spending. There are situations, however, when this or that research lab or university, using their political connections arrange a special financing for them, separate from the moneys reserved for NSF, NIH, etc. It does not really matter how this is done, either via special budget item or via earmarks, it smells like pig. This type of spending is what I mean by "pork". Of course, this differentiation between legitimate spending and pork applies not only to financing of science. I consider a federal spending legitimate, when its goal is to support government's activity beneficial for the entire union, without government explicitly knowing, which state or which organization will benefit from this activity. When, on the other hand, federal moneys are earmarked for a particular organization, state, group of people, this spending is generally "pork". Of course, as this is not a mathematical theorem, there might be a few exceptions. For instance, moneys reserved to support the Marine Corp will be obviously spent in several places, where the Marines are housed, and it is clear that those places will benefit from these expenditures. However, even in this case, there are no direct payments of federal government to the budget of the states or localities, where Marine divisions are housed. I think that this is a reasonable criterion allowing to recognize pork barrel spending in most circumstances.
ReplyDeleteJust a brief addition illustrating my point. My colleague has just returned from a workshop, where he attended a new technology center at the State University of New Mexico. He was astonished by the wealth of the equipment and facilities available to the researchers at that center. When he asked where the money came from in this time of budget crunches everywhere, he got an honest answer: pork. All these facilities where funded by federal government through earmarks or special budgetary items bypassing established competitive channels. This is bad for many reasons. First, the money were obtained as a political favor, which is in line with my point that pork spending distort political process. Second, it results in waste, because these money could have probably been spent better at some other place should they have been awarded through a competition. Third, it distorts the picture of federal spending on fundamental science making it more difficult to argue for better financing of legitimate federal agencies such as NSF. So, you see, the pork is not a figment of my imagination even is science, which is better than other fields protected from this kind of things.
ReplyDeleteFrom you what you've written, it seems to me, we can arrive at two definitions of pork-barrel spending, one narrow and the other broad. The narrow definition would be projects specifically funded through the earmark procedure. I think it's fair to argue that opposition to earmarks comes from both sides of the political spectrum.I just read in the paper today that Obama and the House Republican leaders are competing over who can issue the strongest condemnation of earmarks first. And then their was Russ Feingold, the progressive senator from Wisconsin who made the fight against earmarks his signature issue. His reward? Throw the bum out!
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the earmarks, I think the term "pork" is used in a broader sense, as Lev did in the end of his second to last post, to denote government funded projects targeted at a particular recipient or locale and which are perceived to be wasteful or superfluous. I certainly wouldn't deny that wasteful spending is a problem and it should be curtailed, but who determines what is actually waste? It certainly shouldn't be the windbags on FOX News holding up for ridicule perfectly legitimate, albeit specialized projects about which they know nothing as a cheap ploy to rouse the torch and pitchfork crowd.
Which finally gets me to the example from New Mexico. I can see the point here, but my question would be, is the the country really worse off because the government has funded a state of the art research facility? Aside from the fact that numerous jobs have been created, the scientists, I would assume, are engaging in fundamental research with the potential to open entire new realms of technological and economic growth. So they used a little too much marble when they should have used brick--not a big problem in my book. It may have saved the marble factory across town from going under. Funding such a project through earmarks is also not ideal, but would there have been a way to attain funding for this level of investment through the regular processes, and if so, how long would it have taken? If this project was part of the stimulus package there may have been a need to move very quickly on it. In short, it may well be that the earmark process, however pungent its odor, was the most expedient method of funding this particular project.
In short I see so-called 'pork' as a kind of lesser evil. Yes, there are legitimate concerns about waste, and the earmarking process is deeply flawed. But it would be far worse to cut back spending altogether eliminating projects in health, science, education and infrastructure that the country needs to stay strong.
Nathan, you missed the point from my New Mexico example, or be even two. I am all for building state-of-the-arts research facilities, but ON COMPETITIEVE BASIS. Why New Mexico? Why not Queens College of CUNY? CUNY, by the way is building some kind of research center using STATE MONEY. My problem is not building labs, my problem is with the process. I can easily list a few research centers much more deserving this lab. Giving money to someone always means withdrawing money from somebody else. Process used in this example with New Mexico helps little to the science but contributes a lot to corruption.
ReplyDeleteOne more point: there are very good and expedient ways to fund such projects through normal channels. NSF has programs of this kind and it takes about a year to go from proposal to awards of the money. Stimulus moneys also went to NSF and were distributed competitively, so I do not see any reasons except of political favors to do it the way it was done.
ReplyDeleteLev, I don't think we're in disagreement here at all. I agree that the lack of competition is very problematic and that it would have been much better to fund this through regular channels. My point was simply that even given the corrupt non-competitive way in which this was funded, it is better that the research center was built than not. Hence, the lesser evil. Incidentally, this kind of corruption is by no means limited to earmarks. Remember all those "no-bid contracts" we kept hearing about in the Pentagon during the Iraq war. Is this any better than earmarks?
ReplyDeleteWell, no-bid contracts at Pentagon are bad, of course, but this is a completely different issue. Going back to my example, I do think that it would have been better not to build it at all, so this is not a lesser evil, it is just evil. As I said moneys given to someone are the moneys taken from somebody else who could have spent it much more efficiently. But I do not want to narrow this discussion down to any particular example. My view of this problem is much wider. The pork spending is not your garden variety type of corruption like something you will find in Pentagon or any other government bureaucracies. This type of corruption undermines the entire political process essentially mocking democracy because it corrupts the voters.
ReplyDelete"Corrupt the voters" -- that sounds pretty creepy! Can you explain what you mean? Does this mean we'll have to pass some kind of virtue exam before we get admitted to the voting booth?
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what I was trying to explain in all my posts. And no, I did not mean to examine individual voters' virtues. Let me try to explain it again. People got used to what is given to them for free, and they usually tend not to be willing to part with it. I apply this statement to federal senators, state legislators, and voters equally. Voters are getting something which is beneficial to them (jobs, health benefits, state-of-the-art research facilities, local infrastructure elements) without actually having to work for these particular ends. State legislators are getting moneys to invest in their states' infrastructure and people without actually having to think how to organize economics activity of their states in the most efficient way, and federal senators are getting political support of local politicians and voters not because they introduced some particularly smart legislation or stand up against other legislation because it would hurt their states. Senators "buy" their support because they bring home the "dough". Instead of being representatives of states in the federal government they become "the fathers-supporters", the bread winners. But the main beneficiary of all this is the federal government itself, because by controlling the flow of pork moneys, it controls everybody: senators, state legislature, and the voters. This what I mean by subversion of political process and corruption of voters.
ReplyDeleteI think that it will be interesting to clarify the term "liberal". In Russia I will be named a "liberal" for sure. In Russia it means more freedom especially freedom of press, better economic opportunities for middle class not only for very rich, etc. The interesting thing that for example the United Russia (looks very similar with the former Communist Party of the Soviet Union) supports tax breaks for very rich . The tax rate in Russia is flat an equal 13% for everybody - this is a reason why Russia has so many billionaires. The United Russia supports military expenses, teaching religion in schools, restrictions on press quoting "fight on terror" and quite suspicious for science. This is not surprise for me that leaders of the United Russia said that their best ideological friend should be the Republican Party in the United States. Yes, of course.
ReplyDeleteFrom another side the term "liberal" in the USA means often as a person wanting more rights for gay,lesbians, minorities, etc. etc. From this prospective I am not an American liberal. I want more opportunities for people who work or have his own business not only for rich-rich and "poor-for-reasons-we-do-not-know". The problem is that there is "a welfare party" (Democratic party) and "bonus party" (GOP). It should be also a "paycheck party"!
The most surprising thing in this New Mexico story that some congressman used his power to give money for research. The ugly truth is that research especially basic research is the most certain way to lost money. There is 99.999% probability that quantum dot research in QC will be just lost of money. There is 0.001% probability that some piece of knowledge from this research can be used in future to make something usual with another 0.001% probability of success. The only reason why society is still tolerating this spending is because professors teach students. Yesterday I talked with a speaker of the Columbia University Optical seminar. I was the last person in the list and because of tight schedule our conversation was mainly in the cab to the LaGuardia airport. The speaker Ted Moustakas told me that the main motivation for giving money for agencies like NSF is that "better universities have better students". Thus, Harvard or Cornell will have better chances than Queens College. Note that he did not say about soundness of research or its quality. I think that scientists must be grateful that federal lawmakers still consider science spending as a priority. I think that elimination of "pork" will affect scientific research negatively. Down to the ground people care more about other things like, roads, safety, etc. I could expect the drop of research funding in the future. There are states (of course "liberal") like California, New York or Massachusetts which can give money for research but what about "hard core Republican" states like Alabama or Oklahoma? Do they need any research?
ReplyDeleteI hope also that Republicans finally will get out such liberal thing as a "tenure" positions in colleges and universities. I know that universities are full of liberals but this practice must be put to the end at federal level. I believe that Lev will agree with me completely: tenure practice is completely liberal and non-market thing.
Interesting comments, Ildar. We could have quite a discussion on tenure, but probably better on a separate post. I'm sympathetic to arguments on both sides. About fundamental research, isn't money-losing one of its defining characteristics? This is knowledge for the sake of knowledge--commercial applications may or may not appear later. "Paycheck party" -- well said! I agree that the democrats have been perceived with some justification as the party of "give us some too!"--a messy coalition of interest groups scrambling to cash in on their oppression. But I think this has begun to shift since the 1990s, although it's not entirely clear in what direction. I wonder whether the newly formed agency for protecting consumers in the financial services market is closer to the platform of the paycheck party?
ReplyDeleteI did want to get back to Lev's earlier post on the issue of "pork" and earmarks--which seems to be a big topic in the media these days. I wonder whether all this railing against pork isn't, in some ways, a political ploy to create the illusion of battling waste. Earmarks, whatever their merits or flaws, are only a tiny portion of the federal budget -- One fifth of one percent, I read somewhere. It's also worth noting that there have been substantial reforms in the earmarking process over the past few years that have curbed some of the worst abuses.
I'm skeptical of Lev's point that pork is somehow corrupting the democratic process by getting voters accustomed to received benefits for which they never worked. Wouldn't this apply to all forms of Federal largess, including defense? Regarding earmarks, I don't think they corrupt the voters, because most people don't even know they exist. They tend to go toward narrowly focused projects that benefit a small contingency--physicists, construction workers, public historians, etc. Even if John and Jane Q. Public are aware of these projects on some level, they are unlikely to pay much attention to where the money is coming from.
Finally, I'm not sure I completely accept Lev's contention that the final beneficiary of all this pork is the Federal Government because by controlling the money it controls everybody. After what would be the alternative to pork (in the narrow sense of earmarks)? Presumably granting of funds on a competitive basis through federal agencies. In other words more power for those "underpaid bureaucrats looking for semi-legal ways to improve their financial situation." I'm surprised that Lev would prefer over Senators and Congressmen who presumably are closely attuned to the needs of their constituencies and can be held accountable. Isn't bypassing Washington bureaucrats and giving funds directly to the people in the localities an ideal way to "starve the beast?" Shouldn't we be asking for more pork, not less? Personally, I'll take the bureaucrats, but you see my point...
Nathan, you are making a few interesting points to which I can reply in a relatively short way. First, you question my assumption that pork moneys (and I mean it in its broader meaning, not just earmarks) affect political prospects of congressmen and senators who deliver them. That's a valid question because I indeed do not have a hard data to back it up. It seems that there is a sentiment at least among some voters that such correlations do exist, but I have not seen the data. As far as your suggestion that there is no mechanism to produce such correlations, I think that it does exist. The moneys are being usually delivered through local power centers such as union bosses, local politicians, etc. And even though the number of people who directly benefits from pork may be small, the effect is significantly magnified through the efforts of local elites.
ReplyDeleteSecond, it is true that pork spending is just a small fraction of the budget, thus the discussion of this issue should not be even framed in terms of deficit reduction. This is why I insist on its political rather than financial significance. Third, you are asking if elimination of pork is consistent with my "conservative" views and what would be a better system? I think it is quite consistent. My main suggestion was that it is pork that allowed federal government to "buy" political support from both major parties for its massive expansion. Next logical step would be to assume that elimination of pork will result in eventual contraction of government through tax reduction process and turning more responsibilities to the states and most importantly, to people themselves. In this case there will be no money to distribute. Ideal situation from my point of view will arise when there will be a limited number of agencies and projects run by federal government which will be financed through a transparent budgeting process, and yes, the bureaucrats at those agencies will be responsible for spending those moneys.
Lev, some quick responses:
ReplyDeleteI see your point about the magnifying effect of local leaders and elites, but I still don't think that pork has that significant a political effect. How many people actually base their decision in the voting booth on the ability of a candidate to bring in the bacon? I'm sure there are some exit poll numbers out there somewhere, but I'd be surprised if this is a significant factor.
On your second point, here's my question. What is the Federal Government? You write about it as if it were a single unified entity with a will of its own. So where's the brain? Who in the government decided to buy political support from the political parties? Aren't those parties part of the government? And when legislators from both parties allocate earmark spending, aren't they just exercising the power of the purse that the Constitution grants them? It's not like Congressmen have to ask some Assistant Undersecretary of Nothingness for permission to use earmarks--it's their constitutional right. So who's being bought off?
Another question: when did this 'massive expansion' of government take place? Under whose watch? It seems to me that government has expanded under both democratic and republican administrations, which leads me to believe that all this small government rhetoric is more political posturing than anything else. Can you show me example to prove that I'm wrong?
But assuming that there really as a serious and sincere desire to radically cut the size of government, how can we eliminate the functions of government without weakening the security, prosperity and competitiveness of the nation? What would you cut?
Incidentally your recipe--a limited number of agencies, transparent budget process and responsible bureaucrats seems to me to describe more or less the status quo. What would you change?
Let me answer point by point.
ReplyDelete1. I also would love to see some hard data on connection between pork and voting. May be you are right, may be I am right. Let's dig. Any friends among political scientists/pollsters?
2. What is a federal government is a very interesting question, which I was asking myself while writing that comment. It goes to real (rather than declared) organization of the power structure of the country. What are the actual role and interests of the party leaders in the Congress and the Senate, the role of presidential administration in policy making, the role of lobbyist of all inclinations, etc? More questions than answers. And I afraid that in order to get to the bottom of it we both would have to retire from our jobs. Any suggestions?
3. I do not believe that government can bring prosperity and competitiveness. Only private initiative can do that. Government, however, should provide security, of course, but it does much more than that. I do not think that I described status quo, and I can offer a lot of things that could be cut, but this is a topic for a separate discussion. How about a new post entitled: Small government - large government or something like that. Do you want to start it, while I am writing a comment on your Tea Party history post?
This is a short report on my digging of the pork issue. First, in political-science-speak, pork is called "distributive spending". As expected, there exists a significant body of research of this issue directed at establishing correlations between amount of money politicians bring to their home districts and their share of votes. Here is the link to the article in Politicial Research Quarterly published very recently. The authors of the paper show that there exist positive correlations between distributive spending procured by members of Congress and the share of votes they receive. While both parties are engaged in this process there exists a significant difference in the manner of spending. While democrats tend to simply bring cash to their constituencies, the republicans are more interested in procuring federal loan guarantees for businesses in their districts. The data show that democrats benefit from spending in a much greater degree than republicans, which shows how corrupted democratic electorate actually is. They expect the payouts and reward those politicians who live up to these expectations. Republicans, on the other hand, gain some small advantage only in conservative districts because their electorate views positively support of businesses, but do not expect any direct payments to themselves. In overall liberal districts Republicans actually tend to lose votes if they show too much support to the businesses via contingent liability programs.
ReplyDeleteThese data were obtained for the House members, and not for the senators. Still, they confirm my overall thesis that pork is a form of bribery, and does corrupt the public and democratic political process. It was somewhat unexpected that democratic electorate is so much more corrupt than republican voters. Still, while repugnant nature of vote buying by democrats is more obvious, I am not even sure that I like the republican favorite type of pork - loan guarantees. The businesses should be able to obtain loans without interference of the federal government that just skews the nature of local competition