Author Archive
Public Housing for the Dead
The HUD Inspector General’s Office released an audit earlier this week on the department’s progress in making sure local public housing agencies aren’t subsidizing the deceased. According to the report, local “agencies made an estimated $15.2 million in payments on behalf of deceased tenants that they should have identified and corrected.”
The audit found the following “significant weaknesses:”
- HUD and local agencies did not have effective policies related to deceased tenants.
- Local agencies did not provide accurate and reliable information to HUD.
- HUD and local agencies did not safeguard assets to ensure correct assistance payments.
This report is a small illustration of the fundamental problems with the federal government subsidizing local governments. The local public housing agencies are supposed to be monitoring how money is spent and reporting to HUD. HUD is supposed to be monitoring the local public housing agencies. But no one does a very good monitoring job, despite the piles of regulations and paperwork that every level of government has to deal with for such subsidies. The muddled web of responsibilities also makes it easy for fraud artists to take advantage.
Last week, HUD’s IG reported that the department is sending $220 million in stimulus funds to local agencies already known to misspend taxpayer dollars.
The government is sending millions of dollars in stimulus aid to communities and housing agencies that federal watchdogs have concluded are unable to spend it appropriately, increasing the risk that the money will be wasted.
Since July, auditors working for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s inspector general have scrutinized at least 22 cities, counties and housing authorities in 15 states and Puerto Rico to measure whether they can handle stimulus funds effectively. Only six, they found, could do so.
The rest — in line to receive more than $220 million in stimulus aid — had shortcomings ranging from poor management to inadequate staffing that threatened their ability to spend the money quickly and appropriately, a series of audit reports show.
According to a HUD spokesperson, the department is “spending millions of dollars to help local officials spend stimulus money effectively.” Maybe that’s true, but all monitoring help is a pure loss to taxpayers and the private sector economy.
Even when the federal oversight does find problems, the money often keeps flowing anyway. As the article notes:
USA TODAY reported in April that HUD planned to send $300 million in stimulus money to public housing authorities that had been repeatedly faulted by outside auditors for mishandling other forms of federal aid. Congress gave the Obama administration permission to withhold stimulus money from some of those agencies, but HUD opted earlier this year not to do so.
For more on fraud and abuse in federal programs, including housing subsidies, see this essay.
The Week in Government Failure
Over at Downsizing Government, we focused on failures in the following departments this week:
- Commerce: corporate welfare in Ohio
- Defense: cost overruns in the Pentagon’s space programs
- Energy: central planners gamble with taxpayer money
- HUD: subsidizing private firms to operate public housing isn’t a solution
Also, dubious stimulus projects point to a need to return to fiscal federalism.
Stimulus Jobs Reporting Charade
I have been reluctant to engage in the squabbling over the accuracy of the stimulus job “creation” figures because I believe it is more important to focus attention on the underlying “rob Peter to pay Paul” reality of Washington’s endeavor. As I mentioned yesterday, the government cannot “create” anything without also inflicting economic damage because the money ultimately comes at the expense of the private sector via taxation. There are countless other problems with government job “creation” efforts, including economic miscalculation, inefficiency, waste, etc. — not to mention the immorality of robbing poor Peter.
Yesterday, the White House issued a defense in response to an Associated Press finding that previously released numbers were overstated. The following sentence raised my eyebrow:
The reports are not from the government, but from the very people putting Recovery Act funds to work — governors, mayors, county executives, private businesses and community organizations across the country.
Today the federal government is supposed to release new job creation figures. I believe most of the numbers will originate with state government officials tasked with collecting and reporting jobs “created” with the stimulus dollars that passed through their state. Based on my own experience as an ex–state government employee responsible for collecting and reporting data purporting to show how well state programs were performing, I feel compelled to comment on the accuracy of today’s release.
Not only will today’s state-reported numbers be impossible to prove, they will be flush with erroneous, deceptive, and as Reason’s Sam Staley says, bogus claims. As Sam notes:
The numbers of jobs created or “saved” are simply counts provided by state agencies spending stimulus money. They simply record the number of people hired under the contract or for the project. They are not the result of investigative follow up, or a consistent methodology for identifying real jobs created or saved. (Indeed, these methodological problems have plagued economic development program evaluations for decades as states have claimed jobs were created by various tax incentive programs but no real way to verify the accuracy of the numbers.)
When I worked in Indiana’s state Office of Management and Budget, part of my job was to collect “performance measures” from state agencies. The idea was to offer Indiana taxpayers the appearance that the governor was holding state agencies accountable for how they spent money. In reality, we had no idea if the numbers state agencies gave us were accurate. There were no audits, and once the agencies figured out the whole effort was really a political gimmick, they often just gave us self-serving nonsense. Nonetheless, the numbers were pawned off on the public because it served political ends.
The Obama administration will continue to trumpet the number of jobs the stimulus package “created.” It will brag that the government’s efforts were not only successful, but that they were conducted with unprecedented transparency and accountability. But taxpayers and citizens should not buy into these claims. The stimulus jobs report is simply political theater: a charade intended to maintain public support for, or acquiescence to, Washington’s multiplying encroachments.
Feds Giveth Jobs & Cars, Then Taketh Away Again
The bad news this morning on the impact of both the federal stimulus and the Cash for Clunkers program should not come as a surprise to anyone who has paid attention to the history of government intervention in the economy.
New data that the jobs created by the stimulus have been overstated by thousands is compelling, but it’s really a secondary issue. The primary issue is that the government cannot “create” anything without hurting something else. To “create” jobs, the government must first extract wealth from the economy via taxation, or raise the money by issuing debt. Regardless of whether the burden is borne by present or future taxpayers, the result is the same: job creation and economic growth are inhibited.
At the same time the government is taking undeserved credit for “creating jobs,” a new analysis of the Cash for Clunkers program by Edmunds.com shows that most cars bought with taxpayer help would have been purchased anyhow. The same analysis finds the post-Clunker car sales would have been higher in the absence of the program, which proves that the program merely altered the timing of auto purchases.
Once again, the government claims to have “created” economic growth, but the reality is that Cash for Clunkers had no positive long-term effect and actually destroyed wealth in the process.
Right now businesses and entrepreneurs are hesitant to make investments or add new workers because they’re worried about what Washington’s interventions could mean for their bottom lines. The potential for higher taxes, health care mandates, and costly climate change legislation are all being cited by businesspeople as reasons why further investment or hiring is on hold. Unless this “regime uncertainty” subsides, the U.S. economy could be in for sluggish growth for a long time to come.
For more on the topic of regime uncertainty and economic growth, please see the Downsizing Government blog.
Dancing on Cash for Clunkers’ Grave
My colleague Chris Edwards called the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program the “Dumbest Program Ever.” Given that Chris is familiar with more than a few dumb government programs, that’s quite a statement.
Today, the Washington Post provides more evidence that he might be right:
After the shopping binge inspired by the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” incentive program ended, U.S. auto sales plunged in September and the industry sunk back to the depths from which it started, figures released Thursday showed… The results raised doubts from some economists about the effectiveness of the $3 billion federal program as a stimulus.
Alan Blinder, a Princeton professor who was among the first to push an auto sales incentive program in the United States, doubted it provided much stimulus, in large part because it was in effect for only a month. “Most of the idea of any stimulus is to pull spending up from the future, but it doesn’t make any sense to design a program that only pulls up spending by one month,” said Blinder, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration. “Why in the world would you make it a one-month program? The Germans didn’t do that. The British do that. When I designed a mock version of this I was thinking of it as a one-year or two-year program.“
So, Professor Blinder, what happens to auto sales after your one- or two-year program disappears? Regardless of whether the programs lasts one month, three months, one year, or three years, when the “free” money from Uncle Sam goes away, the result is going to be the same.
Milton Friedman said “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Let’s hope he’s wrong in the case of Cash for Clunkers.
Come Hear Uncle Sam’s Band, Playing to the Rising Tide of Debt
A $600,000 federal grant is chump change compared to overall government spending, and I recognize that picking on individual awards generally isn’t worth the effort because there are bigger fish to fry. But every once in a while I think it’s alright to highlight a particularly ridiculous grant award for the purpose of illustrating that the federal government’s ability to spend money on virtually anything it wants has broader negative implications. So when I read this morning that the Institute of Museum and Library Services (an independent federal agency) gave UC Santa Cruz’s library $615,175 to archive Grateful Dead memorabilia online, I just couldn’t help myself.
The title of my post refers to a lyric from the Dead song “Uncle John’s Band.” According to the lyrics, Uncle John’s Band’s motto is “don’t tread on me.” “Don’t tread on me” was a motto of the American patriots during the Revolutionary War and was prominently featured below a coiled rattlesnake on the famous Gadsden flag.
The Gadsden flag, which I proudly own and used to hang in my Senate office, has regained popularity and can now be seen at TEA Party protests around the country. While some would like to dismiss the TEA partiers as racists, the resurgence of the Gadsden flag indicates to me that a healthy number of folks simply recognize the American tradition of being leery of an all-powerful centralized authority. It’s safe to say that those patriots of yesterday could have never imagined that the small, limited federal government they created would turn into the overbearing $3.7 trillion Leviathan it is today. What a long, strange trip it’s been indeed.
Keep Dreaming, Mr. Vice President
According to The Hill, in a conference call yesterday with the nation’s governors, Vice President Joe Biden said that “In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well.” The “it” would be the administration’s $787 billion so-called “stimulus” package.
At the same time, USA Today reported:
Nearly $10 billion in stimulus aid to repair the nation’s tattered highways has largely bypassed dozens of metropolitan areas where roads are in the worst shape, a USA TODAY analysis shows… The problem is a byproduct of a stimulus package designed to spend as fast as possible to revive the economy. Many roads are in such bad shape that repairs would take too long and cost too much to qualify for funds, says John Barton, head of engineering for Texas’ Department of Transportation. The result is that counties with the worst roads won’t get much more repair money than counties with better roads. The 74 counties with half of the nation’s bad roads will split $1.9 billion, records show; counties with no major roads in bad shape will split about $1.5 billion.
A few weeks ago I was driving on I-70 somewhere around Washington, PA 
and got stuck in a traffic jam over what appeared to be a small bridge maintenance job. A sign, also funded by taxpayers, proudly declared that the maintenance was made possible by the “stimulus” legislation. What irritated me more than the traffic jam was the fact that the stretch of I-70 I was on is a notoriously white-knuckle ride. The pavement is old and the two lanes are squished between cement dividers, leaving little room for error. A reasonable person might conclude that fixing I-70 would be a priority. But reasonable and Congress go together like wolves and sheep. To me it was further evidence of the inefficient, politicized nature of federal infrastructure spending. (It also brought to mind former pork-barrel congressman Bud Shuster’s lightly traveled I-99 in central PA.)
In a different article USA Today also reported:
The $787 billion economic recovery package also is stimulating growth in the federal government as agencies hire thousands of workers and spend millions of dollars to oversee and implement the package, according to government records and spokesmen… That’s helped fuel the continued growth of the federal government, which increased by more than 25,000 employees, or 1.3%, since December 2008, according to the latest quarterly report. During that time, the ranks of the nation’s unemployed increased by nearly 4 million, Labor Department statistics show.
Apparently for VP Biden, “stimulus” success means inefficient infrastructure spending and more federal employees.
Pork Politics
Last night I received a press release from the National Republican Senatorial Committee entitled “Lincoln Votes to Protect Millions in Taxpayer Funds for Little-Used Pennsylvania Airport.” Lincoln would be Arkansas Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln. According to the NRSC press release:
In a remarkable vote on the Senate floor this afternoon, U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) made clear that despite rising federal deficits and a record national debt, she still stands firmly on the side of more wasteful Washington spending. Lincoln today helped defeat an amendment, offered by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), to the annual transportation appropriations bill that would end taxpayer subsidies for the John Murtha Airport, a little used 650-acre facility in Johnstown, Pennsylvania that has received at least $200 million in taxpayer funding. U.S. Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), who the airport was named after and who has been the subject of a number of ethics-related stories in recent months, has personally directed $150 million in federal funds to the facility even though it only has 3 flights daily to one destination: Washington, D.C.
When I went to the NRSC’s website I noticed similar press releases for other Democrat senators who I’m assuming are on the outfit’s election hit-list. Having never received an NRSC press release before, I’m assuming I received this one because I ripped Senator Lincoln in a blog post last week. If that’s the case, I’m impressed with the NRSC’s resourcefulness. Regardless, it made me curious to find out if any Republican senators voted with Lincoln and the other Democrats.
In fact, yes, two Republicans did vote to keep the federal money flowing to Murtha’s airport: George Voinovich of Ohio and Christopher “Kit” Bond of Missouri. Both are members of the third party in Congress: Appropriators. Given that he is the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, it’s not a surprise that Bond voted against an amendment unfriendly to a larded-up transportation appropriations bill. Both are retiring at the end of their terms in 2010, so the NRSC apparently wasn’t too worried about charges of hypocrisy.
With the exception of the aforementioned, all Republican senators voted for the amendment, including appropriators like Murkowski, Collins, Cochran, and Bennett. None of those folks are exactly known as fiscal tightwads. So what gives? Will these senators be headlining tea parties in the near future?
Filed under: Government and Politics; Tax and Budget Policy
Response to Matthew Yglesias re: Uncle Sam’s $4 Million Bike Rack
In response to my criticism of the new federally-financed $4 million bike center set to open at Union Station in Washington, DC, Think Progress blogger Matthew Yglesias says:
I look forward to the day when the Cato Institute does a blog post denouncing each and every publicly financed parking lot or garage in the United States of America.
I’ll take that bait…sort of…
I denounce each and every federally financed parking lot or garage in the United States of America on non-federal property. I’m one of those quaint individuals who recognizes that the Constitution grants the federal government specific enumerated powers. Using federal tax dollars to finance local parking garages, lots, bike centers and racks is not one of the powers granted to the federal government. So let me rephrase my statement from yesterday: Look, I harbor no animosity against [car drivers], but under what authority — legal or moral — does the federal government tax me in order to build [parking garages or lots] for parochial, special interests?
By the way, for an excellent study on the problems with federal subsidies to state and local government, please see my colleague Chris Edwards’ “Federal Aid to the States: Historical Cause of Government Growth and Bureaucracy.”
Here are a few additional random thoughts…
I know so-called “progressives” like Yglesias don’t lose sleep over how much money the federal government spends, but $4 million to park a hundred or so bikes? As Chris Moody noted to me today, if bike security is the major issue, why not pay a guard $12 an hour to stand watch?
Isn’t it possible, just possible, that a bike center with even more racks could have been built for a lot less? Isn’t that the question that people like Yglesias, who want more people on bikes and less in cars, should be asking?
I don’t see anything inherently governmental about building and operating parking garages or bike centers. The absolutely sorriest, most poorly run parking garage system I’ve ever experienced is the one managed by the State of Indiana where I used to work. I recall an overcrowding situation — exacerbated by lousy management — in which the solution put forward was to just build another garage. Hey, someone else is going to pay for it so who cares, right? I often tell people that young libertarians should spend a couple years working in the bowels of government in order to reinforce their belief system with hands-on experience. I’m starting to think “progressives” and other unwavering fans of all-things-government should do the same.
Government Pays $4 Million for a Bike Rack
The $4 million Union Station Bike Transit Center is scheduled to open in Washington, DC on October 2nd. According to an August Washington Post story, 80 percent of the cost of this opulent bike center is being borne by federal taxpayers via the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Look, I harbor no animosity against bike riders, but under what authority — legal or moral — does the federal government tax me in order to build bike centers for parochial, special interests? The Constitution?
But let’s pretend — and I mean pretend – that such federal expenditures are legitimate. The Post article say the center will have 150 indoor bike racks and 20 outdoors. A recent NPR article says it will hold 130 bikes. Whatever the figure, at a cost of $4 million, it comes out to around $25-$30 thousand per bike. And, yes, I recognize that the “1,700-square-foot building west of the station will also have changing rooms, personal lockers, a bike repair shop and a retail store that will sell drinks and bike accessories.” But the ultimate purpose is to hold bikes. In my mind, the extra extravagance merely reflects the fact that taxpayers are picking up the tab.
There’s the old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, it’s more like 4 million:
There you go, America. Your taxes are funding this multi-million dollar bike rack in Washington, DC — the beneficiaries of which will probably be the same Capitol Hill lobbyists and congressional staffers who spend all day pilfering your paychecks.
New Senate Agriculture Committee Head Received Farm Subsidies
In his blog post yesterday — appropriately entitled “Congressional Conflict of Interest“ — my colleague Chris Edwards questioned the selection of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) to head the Senate Agriculture Committee:
Lincoln has been “a tireless advocate for the Arkansas rice industry’ and a ‘champion for agriculture.” You can see what 20 or so other agriculture lobby groups say about Lincoln here. These are very laudatory remarks, but what about the taxpayers? What do taxpayers think about her support for the $20 billion or so in annual giveaways to farmers?
I wonder what taxpayers think about the fact that Senator Lincoln and her family have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies?
From a 2007 USA Today article:
Members of Congress must report sources of income totaling more than $200, but most get payments through partnerships or other entities, so it can be difficult to learn which ones receive the subsidies. Recipients are searchable by name on www.ewg.org, but, for example, payments to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., are listed under her maiden name, Lambert, at a Virginia address near Washington. Records show Lincoln and her family members collected $715,000 from 1995-2005, the most recent year complete data are available. She said she personally received less than $10,000 a year, and the subsidies ended in 2005 when her land was sold.
Let’s say I force a stranger under threat of imprisonment or violence to part with part of his or her paycheck, and proceed to give that money to a friend. I would rightly be labeled a thief or worse. Suppose I not only gave the money to my friend, but kept a cut for me and my family. That would be even worse.
But when politicians do it we call them “public servants”?
Filed under: Government and Politics; Tax and Budget Policy
Does the Government Need More Employees?
The Washington Post reports on the results of a survey of federal agencies on their hiring needs conducted by the Partnership for Public Service:
The federal government needs to hire more than 270,000 workers for ‘mission-critical’ jobs over the next three years… Mission-critical jobs are those positions identified by the agencies as being essential for carrying out their services. The study estimates that the federal government will need to hire nearly 600,000 people for all positions over President Obama’s four years — increasing the current workforce by nearly one-third.
Given the mind-set of most government managers I’ve encountered, I’m a little surprised they didn’t define all 600,000 as “mission critical.” But 270,000 or 600,000, that’s a lot more folks living at the expense of the economically productive class of people in this country called taxpayers.
According to the Post:
The nation’s unsettled economy and high unemployment rate may ease the government’s task, as workers turn to the federal sector for job security and good benefits.
As my colleague Chris Edwards has been pointing out, the average federal employee is doing quite well in comparison to the average private sector employee when it comes to compensation. See here, here, and here.
But here’s the line that made my skin crawl:
It [federal government] has to win the war for talent in order to win the multiple wars it’s fighting for the American people,’ said Max Stier, president and chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, the think tank that conducted the survey of 35 federal agencies, representing nearly 99 percent of the federal workforce.
I could be wrong but I don’t think Stier is referring to Afghanistan and Iraq, so what are these “wars” for the American people? Is he talking about the government’s counterproductive “war” on poverty? Its failed “war” on drugs? Its “war” on [insert societal ill here]? There’s a war going on alright: it’s the federal government’s war against the productive men and women out there who have the fruits of their efforts gobbled up by that Leviathan on the Potomac. The last thing the economy needs are the best and brightest this country has to offer wasting their abilities in some bureaucracy when they could be out starting businesses, creating new technologies, etc., etc. As Chris Edwards likes to point out, would we rather Bill Gates had put his talents to work at the U.S. Department of Commerce?
State Government Job Security
In his recent rebuttal to critics of his finding that the average federal employee makes a lot more in salary and benefits than the average private sector employee, my colleague Chris Edwards notes:
A final consideration is to look at a “market test” of the adequacy of compensation in the public sector–the quit rate. The voluntary quit rate in the federal government is just one-third or less the quit rate in the private sector (Table 16 near the bottom here). That is strongly suggestive of ”golden handcuffs” in federal employment. While many federal workers probably grumble about their jobs (as many private sector workers do), they know that the overall package of wages, benefits, and extreme job security (Table 18 here) is very hard to match in the competitive private market, and so they stay put.
Looking at that Table 16 of government employment data shows that the “quit rate” in state and local government is similar to the federal figure, and in some years, even lower. A Stateline.org story from this past Thursday notes:
In the face of unrelenting gloom, Indiana personnel director Daniel Hackler says the recession offers a few bright spots. The state’s poor private-sector job market – worse than the national average – has lowered voluntary turnover and made state government the employer of choice. Financial worries have also stanched a retirement boom that had threatened to drain the state of much of its institutional knowledge.
As I mentioned a couple weeks ago when the Rockefeller Institute announced that state and local government employment has gone up since the beginning of the recession while the private sector has bled jobs, state government “as the employer of choice” is bad news for the economy as government jobs are inherently parasitic.
And while we’re on the subject, I can’t help but take a shot at Stateline’s characterization of Indiana’s employee performance review system as “rigorous.” Having worked in Indiana’s Office of Management and Budget, I certainly don’t recall anything “rigorous” about the state’s management of its studs and duds (to say there was a lot more of the latter would be an understatement). I also knew more than a few apparent “studs” pulling in nice incomes and benefits who really deserved pink slips instead of pay increases. But then again, most of the these “make government run like a business” initiatives like “pay for performance” and “performance metrics” are really just serious sounding gimmicks that politicians employ when they don’t have the desire or stomach to actually cut government or reduce its role in our lives.
Solid Analysis of Michigan’s ‘Economic Development’ Bureaucracy
Michael LaFaive at the Mackinac Center of Policy Analysis in Michigan is doing excellent work exposing the state’s “economic development” bureaucracy for the press release economics smokescreen that it is. Along with his colleague James Hohman, Michael takes a thorough look at the Michigan Economic Development Corporation in a new study that anyone interested in the issue of state subsidies to businesses should find informative. In fact, I’d like to see other state-based organizations (as well as the local press) conduct similar analyses of the “economic development” bureaucracies in their back yards. I suspect the findings will be very similar.
From the executive summary:
MEGA [Michigan Economic Growth Authority] is the MEDC’s flagship tax credit vehicle for “creating” jobs…To analyze MEGA’s impact in greater detail, the Mackinac Center commissioned an analysis of the program from Michael Hicks, a Ph.D. economist at Ball State University…Hicks was able to find a statistical relationship between MEGA manufacturing tax credits and county manufacturing employment, but the relationship was negative. Hicks reports that from 2001 to 2007, every $1 million in MEGA manufacturing tax credits awarded in a county was associated with the loss of 95 county manufacturing jobs. While the statistical model cannot imply causation, it does strongly indicate that MEGA credits are not working to improve manufacturing employment.
Virginia Bureaucrats Look to Extort Yoga Instructors
Last month I blogged about attempts by various state governments to regulate yoga instructors by forcing them to obtain a costly government license. Today the Washington Post has a story on Virginia’s efforts to place the government boot on the necks of its yogis:
The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia recently declared that studios offering yoga teacher instruction must be certified. That involves a $2,500 fee, audits, annual charges of at least $500 and a pile of paperwork.
Let’s call this what it is: extortion. And if you still harbor the illusion that bureaucrats don’t sit around thinking up ways to pilfer more money from productive members of society, think again:
In Virginia, yoga teacher training first hit the state’s radar late last year after a state employee conducting school audits happened upon an advertisement, said Linda Woodley, the higher education council’s director of private and out-of-state postsecondary education. Before that, Woodley said, ‘I was not aware they existed, and they were not aware we existed.’
Well congratulations, Ms. Woodley — the yogi community now knows you exist.
Studios can teach lotus poses to as many clients as they like, state officials said. But teacher training programs, which the state views as similar to dog grooming, massage therapy or other classes intended to prepare someone for a job, must be certified under state law. (For instance, Simply Ballroom Dance Teachers Academy, Danny Ward Horseshoeing School and Jiggers Bartending School are certified.)
Virginia citizens should sleep sound at night knowing ballroom dance teachers, horseshoers, and bartenders are government certified.
Woodley said it’s also about ensuring that students who plunk down cash for training programs that can run a few thousand dollars are getting their money’s worth. Plus, she said, being listed on the government registry will give schools a marketing tool, like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
Good Housekeeping seal of approval? Ladies and gentleman, this is the mentality of the state bureaucrats that the federal government has tasked with “stimulating” the economy with YOUR money.
State and Local Government Employment Up Since Recession’s Start
Yesterday, the Rockefeller Institute released a report on state and local government employment since the beginning of the recession. It found:
Private sector employment for the nation as a whole has fallen by 6.9 million jobs between the December 2007 start of the recession and July 2009. Over the same period, state and local government employment has risen by 110 thousand jobs or 0.6 percent, with increases in both state governments and local governments.
With a prolonged recession now forcing state and local governments to actually cut or furlough some employees, it’s important to remember that they were adding government jobs at a time when it was clear to the rest of the country that the air was out of the economic bubble. In other words, taxpayers should have no sympathy for posturing politicians and their apologists warning of Armageddon should taxes not be increased to facilitate the continuance of bloated state and local governments. Also, expect to hear claims that getting rid of government employees will somehow hinder an economic recovery. In fact, getting rid of government employees — and the programs they support — would be good for the long-run health of the economy.
A government employee is inherently parasitic because without the “host” — i.e., taxpayers — their job would not exist. One can debate the degree to which a government employee’s work benefits society, but the fact remains that any benefit comes at a cost to the economy given that productive individuals and businesses are taxed to pay for government jobs. This should be obvious. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon these days to hear intelligent people embrace increasing government employment during a recession to “make up” for job losses in the private sector. One need only spend some time working in government, as I have, to recognize that an economic resurgence will not be fueled by increasing the government employee-to-host ratio.
Stimulus and Boondoggles
The New York Times has a story on some of the more controversial ways in which state and local government are using so-called federal “stimulus” dollars. If anything, it provides some interesting background on the history of the word boondoggle (not surprisingly, it entered the American lexicon during the New Deal). The gist of the piece is that one person’s boondoggle is another person’s…turtle crossing…skateboard park…or airport for an island in Alaska with 170 people on it. One New Dealer found this out decades ago:
Robert D. Leighninger Jr., a sociologist who wrote “Long-Range Public Investment: The Forgotten Legacy of the New Deal” (South Carolina University Press, 2007), recounted the story of a Works Progress Administration official in Arizona who went off in search of boondoggles, and discovered that the towns he visited seemed to like their own projects but questioned those of their neighbors. “I’ve been hunting all over the state for one, but everywhere I go I’m told it’s in the next county,” the official was quoted as saying in a 1936 newspaper article. “So far I haven’t been able to catch up with a real, live one.”
Naturally, that attitude is alive and well today. I know more than a few folks in central Pennsylvania who thought Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” was a waste of their federal taxpayer dollars but the “Road to Nowhere” in their own backyard was other people’s money well spent. Of course the folks in central Pennsylvania don’t like being taxed by the federal government to pay for a bridge in Alaska — they don’t benefit, but bear a portion of the cost. And that’s a fundamental problem with federal subsidization of activities that are — at most — the proper domain of state and local government.
Set aside the fact that the Constitution never intended for the federal government to make such expenditures. While any of these controversial parochial projects will technically have benefits, sound economic decision-making would seek to optimize those benefits versus the costs. In the politicized world of the congressional sausage factory, costs scarcely factor into the equation given that the burden is borne by million of taxpayers spread out across the country. Therefore, I think the few in Congress who crusade against these perceived boondoggles should spend more time trying to educate their colleagues (don’t laugh) and the public on the need to limit the federal government’s ability to spend the money in the first place.
For more on the problems with the federal subsidization of state and local government, please see this Cato Policy Analysis from my colleague Chris Edwards.
California’s Prison/Union Problem
Any reader interested in state fiscal policy, particularly California’s, should read this excellent piece of journalism from NPR on the state’s prison predicament. (Actually, folks interested in reading why anti-drug policies and some “get tough on crime” efforts are counterproductive should also check this out.)
California’s prison system is a costly, overcrowded, criminal-spawning mess, and the chief culprit is the state’s prison employee union. But this isn’t just another story about public employee unions extracting exorbitant salaries and benefits at the expense of taxpayers:
In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has contributed millions of dollars to support “three strikes” and other laws that lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to [former Governor Pete] Wilson after he backed the three strikes law. And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to 45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000 a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year.
[Former CA Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation Secretary Roderick] Hickman says the union was able to control the department’s policy decisions, including undermining efforts to divert offenders from prison and reduce the prison population. “Maybe I was just impatient,” he says, “or it wasn’t going to go fast enough, but [the department] is still in the same place I left it, with an over $8 billion budget. Now it’s over $10 billion.” Today, 70 percent of that budget goes to pay salaries and benefits to the union and staff. Just 5 percent of the budget goes to education and vocational programs — the kind of programs that study after study in the past 10 years has found will keep inmates from returning to prison.
This activity strikes me as downright criminal.
Again, the entire article is worth a read, especially with state politicians currently attempting to scare taxpayers into supporting tax increases in order to continue their profligate spending through the recession. Kudos to NPR’s Laura Sullivan for digging into a state’s operations before writing a piece bemoaning its alleged budget woes.
H/T: Reason’s Leonard Gilroy
President Throws U.S. Postal Service Under the Bus
In a speech yesterday in defense of his health care plan, President Obama used an interesting analogy to dismiss criticism that the inclusion of a government-run insurance option could undermine private insurers:
“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine… It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”
Comparing the USPS with a proposed government-run insurance plan is probably counterproductive for the President’s aims. But making the analogy and deriding the government-run mail carrier — while acknowledging that private-sector UPS and FedEx are “fine” — provides some nice ammo for those of us who think the government should be less involved in both health care and mail delivery.
Now I understand that comparing the USPS to FedEx and UPS isn’t exactly apples to apples. But that’s due at least in part to the fact that the USPS has a government-granted monopoly on first (and third) class mail. When it comes to mailing a letter, there is no private option for Americans.
Last week the Government Accountability Office reported on the state of Government Mail and the situation isn’t pretty:
USPS projects for fiscal year 2009:
• a net loss of $7 billion, even if it achieves record savings of more than $6 billion;
• an increase in outstanding debt to a total of $10.2 billion; and,
• despite this borrowing, an unprecedented $1 billion cash shortfall.USPS projects cash shortfalls because cost cutting and rate increases will not fully offset the impact of mail volume declines and other factors that increase costs—notably semiannual cost-of-living allowances (COLA) for employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. Compensation and benefits constitute close to 80 percent of USPS’s costs—a percentage that has remained similar over the years despite major advances in technology and the automation of postal operations. Also, USPS continues to pay a higher share of employee health benefit premiums than other federal agencies. Finally, USPS has high overhead (institutional) costs that are hard to change in the short term, such as the costs of providing universal service with 6-day delivery, a network of 37,000 post offices and retail facilities, and a delivery network of more than 149 million addresses.
It’s time to give Americans a private option for sending mail, with privatization of the USPS being the ultimate goal.
Bernie Madoff and Government Fraud
In an op-ed Chris Edwards and I wrote for National Review Online yesterday, we shed light on the $100 billion or more in government subsidies pilfered by recipients through fraud and abuse:
Every year, criminals and cheats pilfer over $100 billion — that’s $40 billion more than Bernie Madoff scammed off his investors — in federal benefits to which they are not legally entitled. Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, refundable tax credits, and many other programs are targets for looting.
Chris and I focused on fraud and abuse perpetrated by the recipients of taxpayer largesse, and Bernie Madoff made for a good comparison. But as the great economist and Cato adjunct scholar Robert Higgs also pointed out yesterday, “Bernie Madoff Was Only a Petty Crook Compared with Uncle Sam.” Typically, Higgs doesn’t mince words when it comes to comparisons between private and public Ponzi schemes:
Madoff, in contrast to the government, carried out his fraud in a civilized way: he merely misrepresented what he was doing, purporting to invest his clients’ money and to obtain a high rate of return on these investments. People dealt with him voluntarily. Those who suspected something was fishy did not do business with him, and some people went so far as to give substantial information to the SEC to show that Madoff’s business had to be fraudulent (which information the SEC ignored for years on end, of course).
The leaders of the U.S. government have carried out their Social Security fraud—essentially a Ponzi scheme, in substance exactly the same as Madoff’s scheme—since 1935. . . . The U.S. government, however, does not bother to claim any prowess in investing the money it forces people to surrender to its scheme. It admits that the ‘client’s’ return is now close to zero (varying a bit according to the client’s age and other factors). Nor does it carry out its admitted Ponzi scheme in a civilized way. Not only is participation in the scheme involuntary, but the government threatens violence against anyone who fails to participate as it commands him. Thus, the government operates its Ponzi scheme in a markedly more thuggish manner than Bernie would ever have dreamed of. He might have been a crook, but he was not a thug.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets