When the Republicans controlled Congress, they were rightly pilloried for subsidizing such ridiculous porkbarrel projects as the notorious "Bridge to Nowhere." For their part, the Democrats have been funneling money to the equally dubious "Airport for No One:"
If you hate the hubbub of crowded airports, you might want to consider flying out of Johnstown, Pa. The airport sees an average of fewer than 30 people per day, there is never a wait for security, you can park for free right outside the gate, and you are almost guaranteed a row to yourself on any flight.
You might wonder how the region ever had the air traffic demand to justify such a facility. It didn't. But it is located in the district of one of Congress's most unapologetic earmarkers: Democrat John Murtha.
In 20 years, Mr. Murtha has successfully doled out more than $150 million of federal payments to what is now being called the airport for no one. I took a trip to southwestern Pennsylvania to explore how this small town received so much money and whether the John Murtha Airport is a legitimate federal investment.
There are many in Johnstown who see the airport as crucial. Johnstown Chamber of Commerce President Bob Layo tells me: "If the airport isn't paying dividends now, it will in the future." But those dividends appear to be a mirage.
There are a total of 18 flights per week, all of which go to Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C. I was visiting the airport from Washington, but because flights cost a pricey $400, I drove. The drive took less than three and a half hours and cost about $35 in gas—not to mention that it was arguably faster than flying. And this isn't a remote area of the state: Murtha airport is less than two hours from the Pittsburgh airport.
Pork is highly unpopular with most voters. Outrage over pork even helped end Republican control of Congress in 2006. So why does pork persist? In significant part because of widespread political ignorance. As I explained in this 2006 post, Most porkbarrel projects are unknown to the vast majority of the electorate. The only people likely to be aware of them are the small, well-organized interest groups who benefit. Only on very rare occasions (such as the bridge to nowhere) does a particularly egregious project get enough press coverage to enter into the public consciousness. Thus, politicians have incentives to vote for porkbarrel projects despite their unpopularity.
It's true, of course, that some voters like pork that goes to their districts, even if they dislike it in general. However, a well-informed electorate would still force its representatives in Congress to enact a general ban on pork, because most districts lose far more from the porkbarrel projects that go to other parts of the country than they gain from their own. Voter ignorance also explains how politicians from both parties - including President Obama - can get away with promising to eliminate pork and then supporting a bill laden with thousands of new pork projects. In sum, porkbarrel spending is yet another negative aspect of government that is in large part the result of political ignorance.
It seems to me that once you go down the road of arguing about political ignorance, you need something like a model of full information as a regulative ideal. You're picking one preference (pork is bad) that is part of the current system of political information and elevating it to a principle from which to evaluate ignorance. But you should go all the way and ask what an electorate fully informed about the preference itself would think about the matter.
This is why folks like Fishkin propose actual, small-scale, thorough deliberation as a means of understanding what fully informed voters would think.
Also, the airport is also home to a couple military units, though (again, according to Wikipedia) they use mostly helicopters. Wikipedia suggests that the airport used to have much more commercial traffic than it does today.
[I can't post the Wikipedia link, but just search under "John Murtha Airport"]
This implicitly assumes that a knowledgeable electorate would want to spend federal money on such dubious local projects at all. My guess is that it would not - regardless of whether the spending was done by earmarking or by federal bureaucrats. I also think that even ignorant voters know that pork has at least some "usefuleness" for the districts involved.
I'm just raising the question, not guessing as to the outcome of a fully informed process of preference formation. That's partly my point. It seems arbitrary to me to argue that the public is ignorant, but then pick out revealed preferences and assert or assume that they would remain constant in a truly sufficient process of information gathering and processing.
Hopefully they will be able to offer year-round service soon with some modicum of reliability.
The airport is small and similar in its description to the one in this article but I don't know what sort of federal funding goes into it beyond security. It was also the landing point of the first solo nonstop transpacific airplane flight.
Well obviously it's impossible. There are only two choices here: (1) if you trust your Congressman, then elect him and let him to do his job without second-guessing his every vote. Every four years you can evaluate him in a general way, and if the job pays well enough, you can be pretty sure he'll have an opponent who makes very sure to let you know about anything iffy your Congressman has done.
(2) If you don't trust your Congressman, don't re-elect him. Find one you do trust. Alternatively, if you don't trust Congressmen in general, on Lord Acton's principle that even the best of them are likely to go off the rails once in Washington and throw money at silly stuff like this, then categorically restrict the kinds of things Congressmen can do. Take power and money away from them, so their follies and corruptions will always be small. A smaller, less powerful government is inherently incapable of large and expensive mistakes and abuse.
This modern fantasy about having a representative government and some light overcoat of direct democracy is insanely unworkable. All that happens is we lurch from perceived crisis ("Aieee! The Bushies are taking away all our civil rights at the border!") to perceived crisis ("Aieee! The Obamanauts are trashing the free market in autos and healthcare!"), focussing our populist rage for one moment on this corner of government, and then in the next moment on that corner.
This does not lead to stability and economy in government. It would be like working for a firm in which mobs of shareholders wandered the halls, bursting at random into offices and demanding to know in five short sentences (such is the attention span of a mob) what executive X was doing at that moment, and why. This is no way to run a taco stand, let alone a nation.
Once again, if you think this government is untrustworthy, elect a different one. If you think all governments are bound to become untrustworthy, then stop asking government to do so much. Restrict its power so that it doesn't matter very much if it misuses it. Blech.
The public tends to oppose pork because they see no good reason to spend national money on projects that benefit only small, local interest groups. I see no reason why this would change with greater knowledge. Indeed, the opposition to pork might well be stronger, because a more knowledgeable public would realize that these projects create deadweight losses, as well as transfers.
Now describe them this way:
"DNA testing to track and monitor the grizzly bear population to make sure grizzlies do not go extinct. This form of testing is less expensive and more accurate than previous ways of tracking endangered bear populations."
-or-
"A new planetarium projector to replace one decades old which cannot be repaired, so that millions of school children can learn about the universe in which they live."
The voter is now better informed about the pork, but do you think the average voter would be more set against it, or more in favor?
At the time it was built, the airlines didn't want it. They were using St. Louis' airport and cutting back flights even there. Certainly, the farmers whose land was taken didn't want it. The only person who apparently wanted it was the local representative.
And so there it sits. A huge white elephant. I have heard that one flight a week bringing in fresh flowers to the metro east area lands. Those are some expensive roses.
The other problem is that for any item of pork there tends to be a small number of people passionately in favor of it, and a large number of people who are mildly opposed but not very interested, and are willing to accept a bit of pork as necessary to get a bill passed.
Angus, even with the two examples I would call them pork. Both apparently failed normal governmental funding methods so there were higher priority projects. Who even knows if they were near the cut-off list. And the second one I know a fair amount about as my main hobby is amateur astronomy. The planetarium projector is for one of the most well known, and well funded museums in the country. Why couldn't they come up with their own money? A similar situation would be Bill Gates and Warren Buffett getting a grant to host a golf tournament.
This is my primary problem with pork (and earmarks for that matter). These projects bypass the normal governmental budget processes. They may have been considered and rejected as worthless and because somebody knows somebody the project may still get funded.
I hate earmarks, but the Democrats don't have the guts to do anything about this problem; instead, they simply point to Republican precedents. Defenders of the practice go on and on about how bad it would be for unelected "bureaucrats" to make the spending decisions, and almost nobody speaks up for the national interest in having better-quality decisions. Those few in Congress who object get run over and retaliated against.
I wonder if any of you ever looked through that old book, "The Government Racket: Government Waste from A-Z" that Martin Gross wrote back in the 80s, I think it was. Pretty interesting, with its talk of mohair subsidies and the strategic helium reserve, which ensured our blimps would never find themselves cut off from foreign reserves.
Ultimately, pretty depressing though. As a layman, I just wonder: How long, literally, can it go on? I mean, exactly how long CAN we just go about borrowing money and spending it? What happens "in the end"? Do we just declare bankruptcy, and point and snicker at our hapless creditors? "Heh heh. Suckers!"
- Alaska Jack
In the early 1979s, Los Angeles acquired (largely by eminent domain - see e.g., Stone v. LA, 124 Cal.Rptr. (1975)) some 17,500 acres of high desert near Palmdale for a new Los Angeles "Intercontinental" Airport, at a cost of some $100 million (in early 1970s dollars). Over the years eight airlines tried to operate out of there with no success and all gave up, United being the last one about a year ago. United couldn't make it in spite of a $200+ subsidy per passenger.
LA has now given up and has tendered its airport certification to the feds. Last time I looked, LA was running newspaper ads looking for somebody to take over the maintenance of that shut down airport facility.
Your tax money, or more accurately, your Dad's tax money at work.
In the year after the invasion of Iraq, the US Government flew $12 billion in cash into Iraq in order to grease the wheels of the reconstruction. That's a lot of walking-around money. Literally billions of dollars of this money went completely unaccounted for. In 2006, the Democrats accurately charged that the Republican Congress had held more hearings on the Clinton White House's Christmas card list than they had held oversight hearings on the war. Yet you never saw Glenn Reynolds and the Porkbusters trying to chase down that $12 billion in cash.
Murtha's airport may well be a colossal waste of money, but it's a blip compared to that $12 billion in Iraq. The rational, well-informed voter would care far more about the latter than the former. Sure, you can say "it doesn't matter, waste is waste," but if that's your attitude then fix the broken vending machine in the Capital Lunchroom and then call it a day. You can also say "let's just focus on the easy stuff first," but Congressional pork doesn't seem to be that easy to get rid of, now does it? If we have to start somewhere, let's focus on the really big waste items, rather than worrying that the taxpayers just bought Dick Durbin a new espresso machine.
The outsized emphasis on "pork" is one of the biggest fool's errands ever devised. If my company hopes to persuade the US Government to purchase an expensive boondoggle, and you shut down pork so that I can't lobby my Congressman for an earmark any more, what do you suppose I'll do? That's right, I'll send my lobbyist right down the street and have them lobby the Executive Branch instead. If they're a good lobbyist, they'll be just as successful, maybe moreso. But somehow we get tricked into obsessing over the tiny, tiny percentage of federal outlays that consists of Congressional earmarks, not realizing you can eliminate a $100 million earmark and not save the taxpayers a dime if the recipient convinces the relevant Executive department to authorize the exact same $100 million as a replacement.
Except among those voters who benefit from it. While Murtha is the pork tar baby among Republicans, it is mostly Republican leaning states that benefit from federal spending. I heartily endorse Splunge's post above.
According to the Tax Foundation, the top 20 states that received more in Federal spending than they contribute in Federal taxes in 2005 were:
New Mexico ($2.03 in federal spending for every $1 in taxes)
Mississippi ($2.02)
Alaska ($1.84)
Louisiana ($1.78 )
West Virginia ($1.76)
North Dakota ($1.68).
Alabama ($1.66)
South Dakota ($1.53)
Kentucky ($1.51)
Virginia ($1.51)
Montana ($1.47)
Hawaii ($1.44)
Maine ($1.41)
Arkansas ($1.41)
Oklahoma ($1.36)
South Carolina ($1.35)
Missouri ($1.32)
Maryland ($1.30)
Tennessee ($1.27)
Idaho ($1.21)
Individual state reports for the period 1981-2005 are here.
Understandable, it felt like a decade.
Since federal taxes paying for local spending is a zero-sum game, if it is true that "most" districts pay for more pork elsewhere than they receive themselves, that can only be true if many districts lose relatively modest amounts of money, while a few gain a lot. But in that case, it still doesn't necessarily follow that it's a net political negative, because the handful of districts that gain a lot of money care a lot more about the issue than the large number of districts that lose relatively small amounts.
It's worth emphasizing that we're talking quite small amounts. Even the most expansive estimate of government pork spending rates it on the order of $55/person nationwide--- so if you're in one of the districts that does particularly badly, getting no earmarks for your district at all, you're doing $55/person worse than your fair share--- hardly a high priority to base your vote on.
So? If there's one thing that's crystal clear, it is that pork is not individual- or party-related phenomenon. It is a systemic problem, and isn't going to go away without some change to the system. A line-item veto, maybe, or a radical change in house or senate rules.
- AJ
PS Unless you mean that Republicans are guilty of hypocrisy, which probably has some truth to it, in the sense that Republicans at least theoretically are supposed to be opposed to excessive government spending.
I'd say he had a perfect parallel on the house side in Don Young. So where's Don's airport? Ft. Yukon?
The opulence of TSIA is disgusting, immoral, and reflects poorly on the state. Of course it's in Anchorage, so that figures.
On the other hand, CA can't seem to build, expand, or re-develop airports that do get used. Maybe Norm Mineta is the exception?
That's a lot of health care.
His was the bridge to nowhere.
I think the whole argument over pork is really silly, and used just to score political points (which is why I pointed out the largess received by Republican leaning states. Note that is total federal spending, not just earmarks.)
Frankly, I agree with the congressional argument (made by both Democrats and Republicans.) Cutting pork spending won't reduce overall spending, it will just make more available for the bureaucracy. Congress has every right to allocate spending, and pork is a valuable legislative tool in making compromises. Congress is not made of angels sitting around a table; they have every right to "bring home the bacon"--heck, even Ron Paul has placed earmarks in bills. What Congress should do is place earmarks in bills (not conference reports) and then balance their power by passing a line item veto constitutional amendment (though I won't hold my breath for either action).
Sure, there are ill-advised projects, but one of the most effective weapons in Iraq and AFPAK started out as a series of earmarks in the 1990s--Predator drones convicted Congressman Duke Cunningham (ironically, the charges he is serving time for are also the result of unrelated earmarking for the CIA).
Some places seem to have found a better solution to low intensity air traffic. E.g., Stykkishólmur airport in the Snæfellsnes area of Western Iceland. I am not sure if there is a flight a day or a flight a week or what. I did not see any planes or people there. But then the airport is one structure strongly resembling the main building of University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople. Moreover, the building was locked. Nevertheless, we landed quite safely (after my son yielded the controls to the pilot) and were able to call a taxi (with a cell phone of course).
Yes, a line-item veto seems a more realistic remedy than a well-informed electorate (not that Somin thinks that a well-informed is realistic possibility).
I would suggest however that a better Constitutional amendment would be one that would drastically reduce the income of the federal government, say by requiring that bond issues be special-purpose for temporary fund raising related to wars, and those bonds that need to be issued in order to extend paying the national debt off within 25 years. That would force the government to pay off the national debt with money otherwise spent on all sorts of things.
Ain't gonna happen though.
I've sometimes wondered what would happen if the president simply told congress that he would only consider bills that addressed one subject per bill, and would veto any that tried to add riders, etc. I realize that sounds cartoonish and simplistic, but I can't help but think such a move would go over powerfully well with the American people. People generally dislike complexity, and could relate to this.
- AJ
I know, cartoonish and unrealistic I'm sure. I never said I was a smart guy. Just curious as to whether that *couldn't* work (as long as reasonable measures were taken for wars, emergencies, etc.)
- AJ
Maybe, or they might be willing to incur such costs for the sake of institutional maintenance or congressional control over appropriations.
I don't have anything against counterfactual assertions regarding public opinion - indeed, I think that it's really important to think about what undistorted communication would look like. But I also think that once you enter the realm of the counterfactual, you need to figure out a way to avoid ventriloquism. Assuming that the public speaks or would speak the language of public choice theory is not the way to do it.
(*) Actually, the Census Bureau's.
I'm not so sure. How many governors have died of a thousand tiny nattering protests because they used their line-item veto to cut out some pork like an airport for no one? Even der Governator has defied the nattering protesters in his most recent series of vetoes, which cut not the most egregious examples of pork (presumably more popular to do) but rather money devoted to "child welfare and children's healthcare, the elderly, state parks and AIDS treatment and prevention...Democratic leaders in the Assembly and Senate reacted angrily to his use of the line-item veto, disputing the Republican governor's authority to wield that power in this situation and portraying him as callous."
A bit hyperbolic. The Republicans lost control of congress because people woke up to the lies and criminality of the Bush administration and they threw out a bunch of bums in districts that had more smart people than stupid people.
Spunk is right. Pork has a certain efficiency factor. Most pork projects are actually stimulative and often necessary. Debating them all is impossible.
It is true that under the Republican Bush Congress pork spending doubled, sort of like our national debt and budget.
I've sometimes wondered what would happen if the president simply told congress that he would only consider bills that addressed one subject per bill, and would veto any that tried to add riders, etc.
Congress would say fine, you won't be getting any bills and we'll be too busy to consider any of your nominees to anything. We can be patient. After all, you're gone in 8 years, at the most, whereas we can go on getting reelected forever.
But the approval ratings of the state legislature are about 15-20 points lower than der Governator's (their approval ratings are in the low to mid teens, which is also record low levels).
Or pass the mega-omnibus-pork bill that has enough pork in both houses to override the presidential veto...
Would also put a crimp in horse trading, if a bill can only deal with one topic, its alot harder to make a deal with the moderates who are on the fence.
If we fix the original system design, we can get back on the growth track, expand onto a couple more continents and adding another layer if absorbing Europe, Russia—or whatever!—gets messy.
Votes bought by bribery are no less a betrayal of the public trust when done in-house than when done elsewhere.
With respect to this airport, the excerpt in the OP, fails to discuss the merits of the non-commercial or non-passenger uses of this airport; and also fails to note the point that contravenes its "airport to nowhere" thesis. People who fly to Dulles are not going to Washington, DC., generally, (espeially if they are from Penn.) they are flying far beyond, because Dulles is a hub airport.
You know - "1 cut is a tragedy, 2,000 cuts is a statistic."
People like to scream about pork unless they're getting it, but it is a drop in the bucket, mainly useful for political gains on both sides of the issue - bring home the bacon to get re-elected, cry about how horrible it is to efeat an incumbent (or distract from other political issues).
Huge instances of pork end up not being called pork - they end up being called 'national security' or 'health policy' or 'energy policy' or 'Iraq'.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.