Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Congress's Latest Christmas Tree Bill
by David Boaz
David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and co-editor of the Cato Handbook on Policy.
How is a museum like a highway?
Answer: Both get lots of money in the "highway bill" that Congress is currently debating.
And not just one museum, either. The massive $284 billion spending bill includes $3 million for the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, where the Packard automobile was first produced. There's also $1.5 million for the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich., and $400,000 for the Erie Canal Museum in Syracuse, N.Y.
At least those museums have something to do with transportation, though that doesn't quite explain why they should be paid for by federal income taxpayers. But there's money for three children's museums in the bill, as well, including $14 million for the Children's Museum of Indianapolis. Why are taxpayers in California and Texas and Massachusetts paying for a museum in Indianapolis?
The porkbarrel projects in this bill don't stop with museums, of course. Members of Congress have loaded the bill with some 4,000 special projects for their states and districtsfree money, it seems, that the senators and representatives can boast about back home. It's Christmas in May.
Even the transportation projects don't seem to have much national purpose. Perhaps the most egregious item is $125 million for a bridge linking Gravina Island to the town of Ketchikan in Alaska. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, federal taxpayers will eventually pay $315 million for this bridge. Here's the deal: Ketchikan is a town of 8,000 people (13,000 in the whole county, and population is declining). Its airport is on the nearby Gravina Island. Right now you have to take a 7-minute ferry ride from the airport to the town. To save people that 7-minute ride, Alaska wants to build a $315 million bridge.
But even if Alaska wants to do it, why should Congress pay for it? Maybe because Alaska's congressman, Don Young, is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Young managed to squeeze $722 million for Alaska into the bill.
But he's not alone. The bill also includes
* $2 million to construct a garage on the campus of Lipscomb University, a college in Nashville affiliated with the Churches of Christ;
* $4 million for a graffiti-elimination program in Queens and Brooklyn;
* $500,000 for sidewalks and landscaping in Glennville, Ga.
* $1.5 million for horse trails in High Knob, Va.;
* $850,000 for a bike and trolley path in Hattiesburg, Miss.;
* $2 million for a parking facility in Bozeman, Mont.;
* $14 million for reconstruction of a crosstown expressway in Oklahoma City.
Now you might say that if every state and city gets something out of the bill, then what's the problem? But of course not every state gets an equal amount, or an amount equal to the taxes paid by its citizens. States with powerful congressmen like Don Young get more.
But even if it were fairly divided, why send the money on a round trip to Washington? Why not let city councils and state legislatures decide how best to spend their taxpayers' money?
Local museums, parking garages, and crosstown expressways ought to be paid for locally. Last year's budget bill included money for the construction of an additional lane to the off-ramp of the northbound Ventura Freeway at Van Nuys Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. A better example of a local project might be hard to imagine. Though the Gravina Island Bridge might top it.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill to turn over responsibility for highways and transportation to the states. He would also roll the federal gasoline tax back from 18 cents a gallon to 2 cents, allowing the states to raise gas taxes if necessary to fund projects locally. Some state legislatures have endorsed the idea, though other legislators like getting free money from Washington to build local projects.
As transportation economist Gabriel Roth writes in a Cato Institute study, "States fully responsible for their own roads would have stronger incentives to ensure that funds paid by road users were spent efficiently. For example, in the absence of federal grants for new construction, some states could prefer to better manage and maintain their existing roads rather than build new ones. Others might find ways to encourage the private sector to assume more of the burden of road provisionfor example, by contracting with private firms to maintain their roads to designated standards or to provide new roads."
Last year President Bush and Congress agreed to hold the highway bill to $256 billion, a vast sum of money in a budget already in deficit. This year Bush promised not to veto a bill that was $28 billion higher, at $284 billion. And on Wednesday the Senate passed a $295 billion bill.
If the Senate and the House agree on such a huge number, President Bush will face a test: Do his occasional veto threats mean anything? He hasn't vetoed a single bill in more than four years; no president since John Quincy Adams has gone four years without a veto. With spending up 33 percent in four years, now would be a good time to tell Congress to consider new ideas that would be better for taxpayers and better for transportation.
YEP!Does this piss anyone else off?
Mr. P said:YEP!
gop_jeff said:Ditto. That would be a great place for Bush to start using the veto.
gop_jeff said:Ditto. That would be a great place for Bush to start using the veto.
$4 million for a graffiti-elimination program in Queens and Brooklyn
no1tovote4 said:The Line-Item veto? The one that was passed when Clinton was in office?
mom4 said:I wouldn't touch that graffiti! That'll get you shot! :firing:
KarlMarx said:To make my point even further, let me offer an example……
Let’s suppose that we are part of a group of twenty people who agree to purchase a car to run errands around town. However, one person because he is rich is going to pay 95% of the cost of that car. In addition, the decision as to what car gets bought will be decided by vote, each person gets one vote, regardless of their contribution to the purchase of the car.
You find a car that is used, but has good mileage and in reasonably good condition and it costs $5,000 let’s calculate the breakdown in cost.
The rich person pays $4,750, the rest of us each pay about $13 and some change.
Then someone gets the idea that, we really ought to get a new car.... so, by vote 19-1 everyone votes to buy a new car that costs $20,000
The rich person pays $19,000 the rest of us each pay $52 and some change
The someone gets the idea, that, no we really ought to drive around in style and get a brand new Escalade for about $50,000, the vote once again is 19-1
The rich person pays $47,500 and the rest of each pay $131 and some change…..
Now, what is my point? Well, for us all it cost each of us to trade up from a modest used car that could have done the job to an Escalade was about $117! However, for the rich person, the cost was $42,750! Since the extra cost to each of us is somewhat modest, we don’t see the true cost of our collective decision to trade up to a vehicle that obviously is not the best car for the job (unless of course, you believe it is essential that in order to drive around town doing errands, you need cruise control, air conditioning, power windows etc). The one person who bears the brunt of the cost has little say as to how his money is being spent, since his vote has no more effect than each one of ours.
This example shows what the present day system of taxation can result in. Most of us do not see the true cost of big government, since we’re not paying the bill. However, corporations and the rich do see the true cost since they are paying most of the tax burden. It is a known fact that about 5% of the population pays about 95% of the taxes.
