A Harvard study shows what we all knew… pork barrel projects are bad for the economy. But what is really new about this study is that it shows that pork is actually bad for the economy of the recipient districts:
In fact, the study found that in the years following a congressman acquiring a powerful committee assignment, the average company in his state cut back capital expenditures by 15 percent. In one prominent example, Alabama went from receiving $6 million less in annual earmark spending than other states to $90 million above the state average after Republican Sen. Richard Shelby assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1997. Shelby earmarked $15 million for low-cost fabricated housing, but the study found that one of Alabama’s largest suppliers of this housing, Homes Inc., correspondingly reduced capital expenditures by 79.5 percent and downsized its work force by 30 percent.
Politically driven investment usually stinks when measured in actual returns not calculated by the politicians.
Pork is just a means of spending billions so that politicians can get donations in the millions.
June 8th, 2010 at 6:50 am
While all the accusations hurled at “pork” are true, it is democracy at work. Who is to determine the best use of federal money if not the representatives of the states in Congress assembled? The Executive Branch peopled by Presidential appointees who never received a single vote? The Constitution clearly assigns spending appropriations to Congress and grants Congress the power to make its own rules. And political actions by and for federal money have been with us since the founding. By and large, however, the pork is more political fodder than a serious financial problem.The amounts are small and they actually accomplish things except for a small portion that goes to personal corruption.
June 8th, 2010 at 8:19 am
The problem is the corruption and permanent political class they fund.
It is “democracy” at work that has been corrupted by access to other people’s money. 1913 strikes again.
June 8th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Ah, yes, the charm of government by amateurs with untested ideas. Theories of government sound better than they work and ultimately lead to government by those with a vested interest. We have no shortage of people who want change and then complain when and if they get it and it doesn’t give them the result that their theory predicted.
The theory versus actuality is not unlike the debate over climate, an uncertain model combined with polluted data. Reading the ice-age climate is a lot more certain than interpreting political history. The anti-climatology people deny the accuracy of climate predictions while they confidently predict how government would work with their theories. Their free speech is worth every penny as they sound so certain about their theories.
June 8th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Bad analogy. Do you have a book of them?
I’m consistent. I can see climate science failing, and call them on it. I can see government failing and call it like I see it as well.
Faced with a theory, that might fail, but won’t steel my freedom or money VERSUS the known failure with large such theft, my choice is obvious.
You just don’t seem to get it. I’ll keep trying, but with faint hope.
June 8th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Two cautions: 1) be careful what you wish for, and 2) better the devil you know.
June 8th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
That’s crazy. I wish I wasn’t being robbed blind and my children’s economic and freedom future blatantly robbed. Sorry, but I’ll keep wishing for that.
And the devil I know is a devil. I’m proposing an angel take over – its called freedom.