Subscribe: Government Spending
http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/161.xml
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
budget  city  congress  cost  department  federal  government  million  money  new york  new  spending  trillion  trump 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Government Spending

Government Spending



All Reason.com articles with the "Government Spending" tag.



Published: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:00:00 -0400

Last Build Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:39:26 -0400

 



Budget Director Mick Mulvaney: 'We Need to Have New Deficits'

Tue, 03 Oct 2017 14:58:00 -0400

In March 2015, just after a newly sworn in Congress had celebrated the GOP retaking the Senate by passing a budget that blew through the spending discipline of the previous four years, Mick Mulvaney, then a leading fiscal conservative in the House of Representatives, wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed under the headline: "The Republican Budget Is a Deficit Bust." In it, the House Freedom Caucus member complained that, compared to the hold-the-line days of 2011, "debt and deficits" were now "passé," and stated uncategorically that "There is no honest way to justify not paying for spending, no matter how often my fellow Republicans try." Well, at least he warned us. This weekend, Mulvaney, now director of the Office of Management and Budget, went on Fox News Sunday to defend President Donald Trump's framework for tax reform. Host Chris Wallace pointed out that many analysts believe Trump's plan would blow a bigger hole in the national debt. "Now, back when you were in Congress, you were a deficit hawk," the anchor said. "What happened, sir?" While the real answer seems obvious enough—the GOP's fiscal discipline is forever in inverse proportion to the amount of power it holds—watching Mulvaney swap spending-cuts hardassery for the fairy dust of economic growth is still a marvel to behold: I've been very candid about this. We need to have new deficits because of that. We need to have the growth, Chris. If we simply look at this as being deficit-neutral, you're never going to get the type of tax reform and tax reductions that you need to get to sustain 3 percent economic growth. We really do believe that the tax code is what's holding back the American economy.... Growth really is what's driving all of this, and growth is what our focus is, which is why we're willing to accept increased short-term deficits in exchange for that long-term payoff.... Without 3 percent growth, Chris, you'll never balance the budget at 1.8 percent growth again. And as the budget director—you asked me an opening question, what happened to me? Why am I, why am I now interested in deficits? The only way you balance the budget in this country long-term is through sustained economic growth. And that's what everything we are doing in this administration is aimed at that end goal. Mulvaney does make some good noises in the interview about the administration's vigorous regulatory work, on which he is a key player. But his abject surrender on spending cuts, coming after a month of debt ceiling hikes, $700 billion defense bills, hurricane blank checks, and ominous debt milestones, is emblematic of what his old Freedom Caucus pal Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) means when he says, "It's looking as bad as any time I've seen since I've been in Congress." Tax cuts and regulatory reform in isolation can indeed spur growth. But do you know what dampens the stuff? Debt. That's why observers such as National Review's Kevin Williamson call Mulvaney's baby "An Anti-Growth Tax Cut," remarking: "Republicans want to cut taxes by $1.5 trillion—while the government already is running a deficit—and they propose to offset those cuts with wishful thinking." Mulvaney used to be a leading realist in the face of such Beltway fantasia, but now he's been reduced to being Trump's Freedom Caucus arm-twister on budget gimmickry, Obamacare revamps, and even reviving the long-hated Export-Import Bank. As he wrote in his Wall Street Journal piece just 30 months ago, "Because of the hard decisions that defense hawks and deficit hawks had made together, Republicans were gaining the moral high ground on spending. Last week we lost it, and it will be harder to regain the next time." No kidding. Some related Reason headlines: * "The GOP's New Tax Plan Proves Republicans Never Cared About the Federal Deficit" * "Politicians Will Disappoint You" * "Trump's Half-Baked Budget" * "Trump Budget: The Return of Rosy Scenario?" * "Hey Libertarians: Prepare To Be Disappointed in Trump's 10-Year Budget Plan" And from the video division, "Why We Need To Shrink the National Debt, And Fast!" src[...]



Fake Scandal: 'DeVos Uses Private Jet for Work-Related Travel'

Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:17:00 -0400

Today The Hill published a story about Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and then tweeted it out. Here's the tweet: DeVos uses private jet for work-related travel https://t.co/xvdnGmDo2c pic.twitter.com/f5kDumORJR — The Hill (@thehill) September 21, 2017 I get it; stories about government officials abusing the public funds for travel are hot right now. After all, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was just caught trying to snag a military jet for his European honeymoon. And Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price is in trouble for chartering five flights last week alone. Rightly so. But wait! Clicking on the Hill story yields some highly relevant info: Education Department Press Secretary Liz Hill told the Associated Press on Thursday that DeVos travels completely on her own dime, accepting no government reimbursement for flights or other expenses. Of course government officials have special needs, but they are too often used to justify status-oriented extravagance. In Mnuchin's case, the request for a government jet was initially claimed as a necessity for a member of the National Security Council. But as The New York Times dryly explained: "Treasury officials withdrew the request after finding an alternative way to communicate about government matters securely." As for Price, an HHS spokesman said "when commercial aircraft cannot reasonably accommodate travel requirements, charter aircraft can be used for official travel." Which sounds sort of OK-ish until you realize one of those flights was from D.C. to Philadelphia. As Politico noted when it broke the story: On one leg of the trip—a sprint from Dulles International Airport to Philadelphia International Airport, a distance of 135 miles—there was a commercial flight that departed at roughly the same time: Price's charter left Dulles at 8:27 a.m., and a United Airlines flight departed for Philadelphia at 8:22 a.m., according to airport records.... In addition, Amtrak ran four trains starting at 7 a.m. that left Washington's Union Station and arrived at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station no later than 9:58 a.m. The least-expensive ticket, on the 7:25 a.m. train, costs $72 when booked in advance. It is just a 125-mile drive from HHS headquarters in downtown Washington to the Mirmont Treatment Center outside of Philadelphia, where Price spoke. Google Maps estimates the drive as about 2½ hours. A one-way trip was estimated by travel planners to be about $30 in gasoline per SUV plus no more than $16 in tolls. DeVos is lucky enough to be a very rich woman. But you needn't be wealthy to be a good steward of taxpayer money—luckily, domestic and international commercial flights are numerous, reliable, and relatively cheap (though not as numerous, reliable, and relatively cheap as they could be—read all about it in the next issue of Reason). Chartered jets from D.C. Philly are absurd, but so is trying to lump DeVos in with Price and Mnuchin. After all, as The Hill reported: During her time in office...DeVos has charged travel expenses to the government just once: $184 to the Department of Education for round-trip Amtrak ticket between D.C. and Philadelphia. [...]



Justin Amash on Government Spending: ‘It's Looking as Bad as Any Time I've Seen Since I've Been in Congress’

Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:33:00 -0400

It's been a gruesome month for those of us who believe the federal government should spend no more than it takes in. On Sept. 6, only three members of the House of Representatives—Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky.)—voted against spending billions on hurricane victims without offsetting cuts, quite a turnaround in Republican sentiment from just four years ago. On Sept. 8, President Donald Trump signed into law a deal he made with Democratic congressional leaders to raise the federal debt ceiling from $19.84 trillion to $20.16 trillion. (The debt limit had been the GOP's single most effective bit of leverage in restraining federal expenditures under President Barack Obama from 2011-2014, until Republicans retook the Senate and replaced that tool with a shrug emoji.) Then on Sept. 11, sure as mushrooms follow rain, the nation's debt clock zoomed past the ominous $20 trillion mark. At a time of increasing comity between Trump and the Democratic leadership, all short- and long-term forecasts point to two main conclusions: Much more spending, and much more debt. So yesterday, I asked Amash what his thoughts and worries were about government spending in the near future. "It's looking bad," he replied. "It's looking as bad as any time I've seen since I've been in Congress." More from our interview, which came on Sirius XM Insight's Tell Me Everything with John Fugelsang: I think this tends to happen when one party has full control of government: that party starts to go on a spending spree and stops worrying about the debt and deficits. We're going to have to be vigilant here. There have been a lot of things that have passed over the past few weeks that waste a lot of money, that spend too much. When we spend for things that the American people do want, and many people want this kind of disaster relief funding for example, then we have to make sure that we're paying for it. We have to make sure that we make spending cuts elsewhere to pay for what's going on today. Otherwise we're just taxing the next generation. We're telling the next generation of Americans that they have to pay for the stuff that we want today. That's immoral. Let's stay on top of this, keep pressing members of Congress, and don't forget about it. The Tea Party rose up a few years ago because of spending issues, because the government was getting too big. Now we have Republicans in positions of power and influence, and we have to make sure that we stay true to that message, that we want a limited government, we want spending to be brought down, and we want to get our debt under control. Later in the interview, after going over more positive news such as the Amash-led effort to block some of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' odious moves on civil asset forfeiture, I asked whether we're seeing at least some preliminary indications that Congress, whose abdications he has long criticized, was finally beginning to do its job. Amash's answer: I think they're doing their job in some instances, but overwhelmingly Congress continues to move in the wrong direction, the federal government continues to move in the wrong direction. Little has changed in that respect. I see some signs that on the spending front, which we already talked about, things are getting worse. You'll have some positive signs, a few steps forward, but many steps back. I think it's going to take a lot more from the American people to get things back on track. During a video interview with me in July, the libertarian Republican told me that "Hopefully, over time, [the] two parties start to fall apart." Watch: src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B2WolQJIiWg" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" width="560" height="340" frameborder="0">[...]



This Column Will Pay For Itself!

Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:30:00 -0400

The Dutch love their bicycles, if we are to believe what we read in The New York Times. A quarter of all trips are made by bicycle, the paper reports, "and the federal government has been building up the country's bike infrastructure over the last decade." This is very nice, but also: So what? Here's what: "The yearly investment of roughly 500 million euros, or about $600 million, pays for itself, proponents say, by reducing health, social and other costs." Mirabile dictu! A $600 million expenditure that doesn't cost a thing. If only America could import this magical method of financing government initiatives! Apparently it can. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, President Donald Trump's border wall needs to stop as little as 9 percent of illegal immigrants to pay for itself. How? Ostensibly, it will save government expenditures on education, welfare, and things such as "police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services." Hmmmm. It makes sense to say adding unlawful border-crossers could impose higher costs on the public schools. But it's laughable to claim America will have to build more highways because of them. And when is the last time your local government representatives said they had to raise your taxes because the parks are overrun with illegal immigrants? Then there's "similar services" — a phrase that, like "social and other costs," does much work without saying much at all. It's the kind of vague terminology you're supposed to skim over without further thought. You know what else supposedly would pay for itself? An $8 billion government program to provide child care in Canada. And how would it do that? Well, Canada has about 150,000 stay-at-home moms, and if every one entered the workforce, that would boost Canada's GDP about 2 percent, which would generate $8 billion in taxes. Ta-da! Economic growth is not good just for child care. It's a miracle elixir that makes many proposals pay for themselves. When he pitched Trump's tax-cutting proposal, for instance, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin promised that "the plan will pay for itself with growth." Economists chortled. It's the same story for a proposed $73 million baseball stadium for the Pawtucket, R.I., Red Sox. Rhode Island Public Radio reports that "supporters say the stadium would spur additional development in Pawtucket and more than pay for itself over 30 years." The same apparently goes for, yes, a lacrosse stadium in the Ohio village of Obetz (pop. 4,500). The Columbus Dispatch notes that village administrator Rod Davisson expects "the facility will essentially pay for itself by generating its own revenue, attracting business, creating jobs and increasing the community's overall value and appeal." Sure it will. They said the same thing about the new stadium for the Braves in Gwinnett, Georgia: "Commissioners assured residents the stadium would pay for itself and spark economic development nearby," the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted five years ago. But "the county is still struggling to find money to pay the stadium debt." In an update this January, the paper wrote that the county is refinancing the debt, which it hopes will allow it to end the practice of diverting "hundreds of thousands of dollars in hotel-motel tax money to help cover payments." In fact, just about every new stadium financed with public funds is justified on the grounds that it will pay for itself through spin-off development and, um, social and other benefits. In just about every case, it's bunk. High-cost early childhood education? That will earn you a return of 13 percent a year and therefore "beats the stock market hands-down," according to NPR. Likewise, a study several years ago purported to show that an $847 million "investment" in pre-K in Virginia would pay for itself in 11 years. Why, with those kinds of return, you can't afford not to invest. A $2.5 billion waterfront trolley system in New York City? It will pay for itself, Mayor Bill DeBlasio claims, through new devel[...]



$20,000,000,000,000 in Debt and Rising

Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:30:00 -0400

The deal to raise the debt ceiling bumped what Washington has borrowed to more than $20 trillion.

Democrats and most Republicans got spending they wanted, plus suspension of the debt limit. Trump got the hurricane Harvey relief spending that he wanted.

But this is a bad deal for us taxpayers and everyone's children. Our debt now exceeds the value of everything that America produces in a year. Soon, warns economist Ed Stringham, we'll be like Greece; forced to make sudden cuts because we cannot borrow more to finance our spending addiction.

John Stossel fears the U.S. government will then just print more money. That's what countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe have done. That didn't work out well.

Let's avoid that fate. Cut spending, now!

Actually, the federal government could avoid a crisis if it just reduced future spending increases to the rate of inflation. But the big spenders won't even do that.

Produced by Maxim Lott. Edited by Naomi Brockwell.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.




'The New Center' Is Full of the Same Old Worship of a Powerful Federal Government

Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:15:00 -0400

Bill Kristol of the conservative Weekly Standard and William Galston of the more liberal Brookings Institution have teamed up to explore what "the center" of politics looks like in an era of President Donald Trump. They've just released the results in a report called "Ideas to Re-Center America." The concept should be familiar by now—some guys on both sides think that what will fix our polarized America is a path right down the "middle" of American politics. Kristol told The Washington Post that the process of writing the report made him discover "there was more being missed by Republican politicians and think tanks than [he] realized." So what does this new middle look like? Well, apparently Joe Average is really, really angry about Chinese theft of intellectual property. Wait, what? "The New Center" cares so much about intellectual property theft and patent reform that it's one of the seven major planks of its platform. Read this policy proposal and ask yourself if it sounds like Main Street populism or if it sounds like the work of some think tanks and lobbyists with a vested interest in certain outcomes: Tariffs are the nuclear option of international trade and can spur a counterproductive trade war. But China and other countries must understand there are real consequences for violating U.S. intellectual property protections. Two measures passed by Congress in the 1970s—Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—provide the president broad latitude to investigate trade practices that are harmful to the U.S. and to impose sanctions. I'm sure there's absolutely no self-interested parties in Washington, D.C., who recommended to Kristol and Galston that they include this bit: In 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act—commonly known as the "sequester"— which slashed discretionary spending across the federal government, with little consideration for the effectiveness of affected programs. Economic returns from basic government research are so significant—with a $1 investment in basic government research spurring over $8 in additional industry investment—that Congress should restore and increase basic research funding. Setting sarcasm aside (briefly), the entire report reads like it was written by Beltway professionals, and Kristol acknowledges to the Washington Post that it's where many of these ideas came from. Let's not necessarily talk smack about think tanks. The libertarian Cato Institute was consulted for this report (and of course, Reason Foundation is a think tank that publishes this very blog and pays me). But this is the "No Labels" shtick. It sells technocratic management of citizens' lives as some "moderate" alternative to the left and the right, but it's still big government controlling what people can do and ignoring side effects that lead to corruption. Consider the abuse potential on this recommendation on skills training: In early 2017, there were 6 million job openings even as 6.8 million Americans were looking for work. This is a stark reminder that too many Americans don't currently have the skills employers need. One way to fix this imbalance would be for the federal government to make more of its educational funding (e.g. Perkins loans) conditioned upon students pursuing majors in areas where there are projected future job shortages. Who would be projecting these future job shortages and who will be lobbying for certain recommendations? An instructive warning: The economic stimulus plans pushed by President George W. Bush and supported by President Barack Obama created a land rush in the Southern California desert to develop dozens and dozens of solar energy projects. A small number of solar plants did get built. Many more did not. Meanwhile, colleges were flogging solar energy job training programs for all the many openings these solar plants were going to provide. Then they didn't happen (and [...]



City Budgets Squandered on Pointless Union Giveaways

Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:01:00 -0400

Talk to almost any city or school district official in California, and it won't take long before the poor-mouthing begins. Budgets are stretched to the bone. There's barely enough money to pave the roads and pay for textbooks. If only taxpayers would pay more, there might be enough money to improve services or better educate the kids. Yet with every tax hike and bond measure, services never really improve. That's because the problem isn't a lack of money, but the foolish way that officials spend what they've got. And few cities have behaved of late more foolishly than Santa Ana, Calif., whose policies should offer a warning for others. Earlier this month, the Santa Ana City Council voted unanimously to approve the county's first citywide "project labor agreement" for most city-funded construction projects. Councilman Jose Solorio called the vote "historic," which it is, but only in the sense that it's a historically bad move that will hurt Santa Ana residents by assuring they get fewer public services. PLAs are union-drafted construction agreements that essentially mandate the use of unionized contractors on most city projects. Supporters made a big deal of this PLA's hiring preferences for local workers, but that's largely a mirage. Cities cannot require that workers come only from certain ZIP codes, so they set easily evaded "goals" as a means to sell this giveaway to local residents. Unions need only exert their "best efforts" to hire from the local labor pool. The city's own staff report estimates that "this agreement will add an additional 10-20 percent for public work on the construction phase." The report says that may mean an additional $2.7 million to $5.4 million a year. That's real money that could be used for real projects in a city that often has serious budget woes. Santa Ana residents ought to be angry about such "generosity." Yet news reports quote Solorio arguing the city doesn't anticipate any new costs beyond hiring a full-time person to administer the agreement, because the city already pays "prevailing wage." I take umbrage at hiring a new person to administer an unneeded contract rather than serve residents, but that's a side point. The main point is that PLAs do boost costs. Solorio obviously hasn't done his homework on this widely-researched issue. Yes, cities already pay artificially inflated prevailing wages. With a PLA, the wage mandates won't change, but the number of bidders on contracts will drop precipitously. Less competition means higher prices. The contract limits nonunion contractors to those with five or fewer employees. The bigger nonunion contractors already have a workforce they know and trust, but to bid for a city project they'll have to use workers from the union hiring hall. Most firms simply won't bid for these jobs. This is how trade unions use political muscle to shove aside competitors. They also get to micromanage city contracts. City residents aren't going to benefit. PLAs are a bad idea, but they are spreading. The Orange County Register reported last week that the Santa Ana Unified School District is considering entering into a similar "community workforce agreement." Only one other school district in the county (Anaheim Unified School District approved one last month) has one. Santa Ana schools ought to know better. In 1999, voters approved a school bond that promised to build 13 new schools. After it passed, the district voted to sign a PLA. When all was said and done, Santa Ana was only able to build five schools because of insufficient funds. In poor, struggling districts, this is an outrage. The kids suffer to help well-paid union officials. There are all sorts of other problems with these agreements and the Santa Ana process. PLAs require construction workers to pay into union pension funds, but few of them will be on the job a sufficient number of years to be vested. Is that fair? Backers of these agree[...]



On Health Care, Private Sector May Show Congress the Way

Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:15:00 -0400

Just because Congress can't fix health care doesn't mean it can't be done. That's the message from the Health Transformation Alliance, 41 big American companies that have banded together to try to save money and lives on their own, without waiting for Congress to pass a new law. The Alliance's chief executive, Robert Andrews, himself a former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, had a recent New York Times op-ed reporting on three steps being taken by the companies, which spend about $25 billion a year on covering about 6 million employees and retirees. One is using "big data" analysis to find patterns on which providers are delivering the best results. Another involves negotiating better deals with the medicine middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers. A third will be setting up new medical networks in Dallas/Ft. Worth, Phoenix, and Chicago to treat back pain and diabetes and to provide knee and hip replacements. Andrews writes that the drug reforms alone "are projected to save participating companies, their workers and, in some cases, retirees at least $600 million over three years—while achieving the same or better results." Which raises one big question that he doesn't get into in the Times op-ed: if these savings are such a great idea and so easily achievable, why isn't the federal government doing these things? After all, government spends more than $1 trillion a year on Medicare and Medicaid. State budgets pick up some of the Medicaid costs, in ways that are threatening to crowd out other expenditures; in Massachusetts, for example, MassHealth consumes 40 percent of the state budget. In New York, Medicaid is one third of the state budget. At the federal level, Medicare, the health care program for the elderly, is about 15 percent of the total federal budget, about the same as what gets spent on defense. True, Medicaid reimbursement rates to doctors are already rock-bottom compared to private insurance. Some states are trying to save more money on the program. In Rhode Island, for example, where about 30 percent of the state budget is devoted to Medicaid, Governor Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, says she saved $75 million on Medicaid in 2016 and $120 million in 2017 "by reducing waste and increasing program efficiency and effectiveness." Even so, the private sector's leadership here highlights some structural differences between government and business that may help explain why progress by Congress has been so slow by comparison. One big difference is that what the private sector hails as "savings," in the public sector gets demagogued as "cuts." This is a bipartisan problem. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney repeatedly attacked Barack Obama and ObamaCare for having supposedly having "cut Medicare for current Medicare recipients." Romney described ObamaCare as a "Medicare-cutting monster." When President Trump proposed reductions in the rate of growth of health care spending, Hillary Clinton denounced Republicans as "the death party." Another big difference is the influence of interest groups, and their effect on incentives. If a CEO wants to save shareholders money by wringing better value from health care vendors, he or she is likely to be thanked with a bonus for increasing profits. Or the CEO's stock options will be worth more. When a politician tries to save taxpayers money by doing the same thing, big and powerful campaign donors and constituents and potential future employers—drug companies, doctors, their lobbyists, hospital board members, health care worker unions, medical device manufacturers, nursing home proprietors—push back hard in the other direction. The politician may decide the potential savings aren't worth the aggravation. What does that mean for health care cost and quality? A system in which government is the only buyer is likely to be more expensive. A system in which companies or gro[...]



5 Cities That Got F**ked By the Olympics

Fri, 04 Aug 2017 10:30:00 -0400

Host cities for the next two Summer Olympics have been finalized this week, Paris in 2024 and Los Angeles in 2028. They were the only two candidates for either Olympics. Both will be hosting the Summer games for a third time. Several cities expressed interest but ended up dropping out because, well, hosting the Olympics is a shit deal. Take it from the organizers in these five cities. You might be certifiably insane to want to host an Olympics. Athens 2004 Athens, birthplace of the ancient Olympics upon which the contemporary games are built, desperately wanted to host the modern centennial in 1996 (Athens was also the host in 1896), but lost out to Atlanta. Eight years later it hit the jackpot. Preparation for the 2004 games marked the beginning of Greece's contemporary spending binge. The Greek government hadn't balanced a budget in nearly 40 years, but it got a lot worse after the Athens Olympics. The games cost $11 billion, twice the original estimate, driven, in part, by gross mismanagement and last-minute preparations. Security alone cost $1.2 billion. Just six years after the games, more than half the venues built for the event were underused or empty. Ten years after the games, most of the venues were abandoned—unfilled swimming pools, overgrown stadia, and graffiti-laden monuments, a warning for any city contemplating hosting an Olympics in the future. "I feel vindicated, but it's tragic for the country," Greek anti-Olympics activist Stella Alfieri told CNBC in 2010. "They exploited feelings of pride in the Greek people, and people profited from that. Money was totally squandered in a thoughtless way." Sochi 2014 At nearly $50 billion, the Sochi Winter Olympics were the most expensive in Olympics history, costlier than the previous 21 Winter games combined. No small feat, made possible with a big assist from rampant corruption, or, as Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov put it, the "out-of-control, absolutely immoral behavior of the authorities." A 2013 report by Nemtsov and Leonid Martynyuk, another political activist, estimated that $21 billion of the cost up to that time had been swallowed up by "embezzlement and kickbacks" to Putin's inner circle of businessmen friends. "The Games are nothing but a monstrous scam," he said at the time. Nemtsov was assassinated in 2015. The Sochi Olympics exacted significant human cost. Authorities evicted and rarely compensated residents from homes in the way of construction plans, something common for the Olympics games. "The whole place resembles nothing so much as a Communist-era construction project," The Economist wrote of Sochi half a year before the games were set to open. "Cost, efficiency, nature and human lives never stood in the way of Soviet rulers who reversed Siberian rivers, built cities in permafrost and planted corn in virgin land—often to ruinous effect." Sochi was even worse, according to The Economist: "the amount of public money it will cost makes Soviet projects pale in comparison." Rio de Janeiro 2016 Protesters in Brazil took to the streets before the start of the 2016 Summer Olympics to demand the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff and the prosecution of her predecessor, Ignacio "Lula" da Silva, who was president of Brazil when Rio was awarded the 2016 Olympics. Protesters got their way—Rousseff was removed from office at the end of August, just 10 days after the Olympics, and earlier this year da Silva was convicted on corruption charges. The Olympics were not the primary reason for Rousseff's dramatic loss of popularity, but along with the 2014 World Cup, they helped illustrate how disconnected her government was from the general public. In addition to the demolition of poor favelas, or neighborhoods, the Olympics highlighted how willing was a government that considered itself populist to spend money on prestige rather than soci[...]



Stossel: $2 Million Bathroom

Fri, 04 Aug 2017 10:00:00 -0400

John Stossel investigates a New York City park bathroom that cost $2 million to build.

For that price you might expect gold-plated fixtures—but it's just a tiny building with four toilets and four sinks.

New York City Parks Commissioner Mitchell Silver says $2 million was a good deal because "New York City is the most expensive place to build."

He estimates that future bathrooms will cost more than $3 million.

Commissioner Silver argues that this park, on the outskirts of Brooklyn, will get so much use that it must be built to last, and that can be expensive.

Yet privately managed Bryant Park, in the middle of Manhattan, gets much more use and its recent bathroom renovation cost just $271,000.

Since government spends other people's money, it doesn't need to worry about cost or speed. Every decision is bogged down by time-wasting "public engagement," inflated union wages, and productivity-killing work rules.

Two million dollars for a bathroom. That's your government at work.

Edited by Joshua Swain.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.




Remy: $20 Trillion Reasons (Lady Gaga Parody)

Thu, 03 Aug 2017 13:12:00 -0400

Remy tries his best to explain why the nation's debt is reason enough to curtail government spending.

Lady Gaga parody written and performed by Remy
Music tracks and background vocals by Ben Karlstrom
Video by Meredith Bragg

LYRICS:
Why can't we buy these tanks the Army says they don't need
Why can't we buy these solar-powered abortion machines
Uh, sir, there's 20 trillion reasons
You have 20 trillion reasons
We got 20 trillion reasons
About 20 trillion reasons

Why can't we build a border wall that touches the skies
Stay on our momma's healthcare until we're 45
We got 20 trillion reasons
You have 20 trillion reasons
We got 20 trillion reasons
About 20 trillion reasons

We took centuries
to reach 10, now I fear we're gleaning
Debt is like this guy
it should be nowhere near the teens and
now we've got about 20 trillion reasons to stop today
But maybe if we just spend one more we'll stay

Twenty trillion dollars stacked together just might reach to the sun
Uh, so
It could even last Johnny Depp for over a month
Dear God
We got 20 trillion reasons
They got 20 trillion reasons
You have 20 trillions reasons
We have 20 trillion reasons

Could we pay off the tab by buying unneeded jets
Or just identify as being not that in debt
We'd still have 20 trillion reasons

Still the 20 trillion reasons
Still have 20 trillion reasons
Over 20 trillion reasons

I've paid social security since I was first hired
Will that program still exist on the day I retire

I forgot my car
It's parked in the two hour parking
Lord, show me the way
I think I hear my third wife carping
I got a pot of sauce I left on the oven range

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.




Trump Budget Full of Spending Increases

Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:15:00 -0400

Remember President Trump's "terrible" budget cuts? "Promises Little but Pain," warned The New York Times. "Harsh and shortsighted," cried The Washington Post. Then Congress passed a budget. President Trump signed it. Do you notice the "pain"? I follow the news closely, but until I researched this column, I didn't know that Congress actually raised spending on the very agencies Trump wanted to cut. Trump called for a $4.7 billion dollar cut to the Agriculture Department. Congress increased the department's appropriation by $12.8 billion. He called for a $15 billion cut to Health and Human Services. Congress instead gave them $2.8 billion more. Trump wanted a $6.2 billion cut to Housing and Urban Development. Congress gave HUD a half-billion-dollar increase. Trump wanted the Commerce Department's budget cut by $1.4 billion. Congress made no cut. And so on. Why wasn't that news? Because in Washington, and in the media's eyes, spending increases are expected. And cuts are always "terrible." America continues on its road to bankruptcy. What will those departments do with their new money? The Agriculture Department says its mission is to "promote agricultural production that better nourishes Americans." Politicians claim we need the department to guarantee an adequate food supply. Nonsense. Because of the free market, agricultural entrepreneurs provide plenty of food. Fruit and vegetable farmers rarely get subsidies, but there are ample supplies of fruits and vegetables. We don't need an Agriculture Department any more than we need a Hollywood Movie Department or iPhone Department. Most of what the department does is corporate welfare. America's richest corn and grain farmers collect most of the money. Politicians eagerly give money to people who visit their offices and pour out tales of need. Corn and grain farmers visit and whine because they have millions of dollars at stake. You don't visit because each subsidy costs you just a few bucks. So the corporate welfare continues. Members of Congress might stop the wasteful spending if they spent their own money. But they don't. They spend ours. Congress ignored Trump's request to cut the Commerce Department, too. Commerce's biggest program is NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA pushes climate change alarmism, producing PSAs that warn Arctic ice is "thinning at an alarming rate!" If that's a serious problem, NOAA's spending won't stop it. NOAA's bureaucrats got caught buying a $300,000 yacht—and using it to go fishing. The department says what they do is "critical." They fund "centers in every state that consult with companies facing technological problems." Government is good at fixing tech problems? News to me. The department claims "every dollar of federal investment ... generates around $30" because each "$2,400 investment" creates a job. I'm sure they help some politically savvy companies, but their claim ignores the good things your money would have done had it stayed in the private sector. That's the unseen cost of funding every department. We'll never know what our dollars might have done had they not been taken from us by government. Maybe a new Steve Jobs would have invented a... I don't know. We'll never know, because government grabbed the money. President Trump seems to understand that government wastes money, but after proposing cuts to some departments, he was eager to increase military spending. So Congress did. The military got the biggest increase. Defense, at least, is a proper role of government. Government should keep us safe. But our current military is wasteful and involved in needless foreign entanglements. We spend as much as the next seven countries combined—eight times more than Russia spends. Many of the missions our politici[...]



Justice Department Again Threatens to Snatch Federal Grants from Sanctuary Cities

Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:45:00 -0400

The Trump administration keeps trying to punish sanctuary cities that don't cooperate in enforcing federal immigration policy, even though the feds don't have the authority to demand all that much. The latest news is that the Department of Justice will attempt to tie a federal crimefighting block grant fund to three demands. Cities or states that want to receive the money must do the following: Prove compliance with federal law that bars cities or states from restricting communications between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the immigration or citizenship status of a person in custody. Allow DHS officials access into any detention facility to determine the immigration status of any aliens being held. Give DHS 48 hours' notice before a jail or prison releases a person when DHS has sent over a detention request, so the feds can arrange to take custody of the alien after he or she is released. At stake is access to money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (Byrne JAG) Program, which distributed nearly $275 million in federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies in 2016. The first demand is not new. It refers to the only federal law that truly matters when we're talking about sanctuary cities. States and cities cannot be forced to assist DHS and ICE in detaining and removing people who are in the country illegally. Detention "orders" are actually just "requests." When the Department of Justice actually began investigating sanctuary cities, it turned out that only a handful were even potentially operating in defiance with the federal law referenced above. Only eight cities and one county have policies that conflict with the federal law and block law enforcement officers or other government officials from communicating with the feds about an alien's immigration status. That's it. The second and third demands are essentially acknowledgments that cities can't be forced to assist. Instead, they're being told to get out of the way if they won't help. President Donald Trump has already attempted once, via executive order, to threaten to withhold federal grant funding from sanctuary cities. A federal judge blocked that order because it was overly broad, lacked due process, violated the Tenth Amendment, and violated the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. This new guidance is more narrowly tailored, since the Department of Justice has leeway in how it distributes the grant money. But note that the funding is for all sorts of crimefighting and court projects that have nothing to do with immigration enforcement. Some of it also goes to things like drug task forces and prohibition-fueled nonsense, so maybe losing some of that money is for the best. Obviously, the Justice Department is hoping the threat will create enough of a wedge between law enforcement agencies and their ruling cities and states to force cooperation. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions remain heavily invested in trying to convince (or assure) their basis that illegal immigrants are a threat to Americans. Sessions in his announcement of this new guidance cynically attempted to blame the existence of sanctuary cities for the terrible weekend human trafficking tragedy where 10 people died after being stuck in the trailer of a truck in a San Antonio parking lot. But it's not sanctuary cities that cause human trafficking. The trafficking is the direct result of how difficult the federal government makes it for immigrants to cross borders legally. Meanwhile, in a speech in Ohio last night, Trump presented illegal immigrants essentially as the monsters under your teenage daughters' beds: The predators and criminal ali[...]



Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes: The Story of Government

Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:00:00 -0400

If we judged everything by intentions rather than results, the world would be a strange place indeed. Steve never calls his mother on her birthday, but he always means to, so isn't he a wonderful son? That goes for government as well: If we judged laws only according to what their sponsors intended, then every law and every program that has ever been enacted has been an unqualified success. After all, nobody intends for things to go wrong—right? And yet things do go wrong. The news is full of examples. Take civil asset forfeiture, one particularly dubious form of which Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reviving. The intention behind civil asset forfeiture—a practice in which the government seizes the property of suspected criminals—is brilliant: Confiscate the ill-gotten gains, auction them off, and then use the proceeds to finance investments in law enforcement. Using criminals' own resources against them: It's law enforcement jiu-jitsu! It's also an unmitigated disaster. In practice, giving police officers a financial incentive to seize people's property without having to bring any criminal charges against them is a recipe for wanton abuse. Thousands of innocent Americans have been robbed at the hands of the very people who are supposed to be protecting them. The problem has grown beyond repeated congressional efforts to contain it. It has even grown so bad that two of the originators behind the idea have called for an end to forfeiture because "government self-interest corrupted a crime-fighting tool into an evil." Not every case is quite so extreme. But many are still bad enough. Consider a Kentucky program aimed at reviving poor rural areas by retraining workers to become computer programmers. The effort to breathe new life into the coalfields was part of President Obama's TechHire Initiative, and was conducted in concert with the Appalachian Regional Commission. According to a report from The Daily Signal, the job-training program was intended to turn out 200 skilled workers who could write code for smartphone apps and similar high-tech ventures. But the effort has fallen short: After $1.6 million, only 17 program participants have landed tech jobs. Some are quite happy with where they landed, but others who went through the program are not: "I am now in a job that has absolutely nothing to do with programming," says one. A spokesman for the company contracted to provide the training says the company isn't to blame: There were "more challenges than expected when it came to personal development and growth," she said, citing a lack of "basic business environment skills" such as personal attire and communication. But once you set aside the question of whether former coal miners clean up nicely, there's still the grim fact that a federal program to help communities partake in the 21st century economy could scare up fewer than 20 jobs. That's swell for the individuals, but it's not going to bring an entire geographic region back to life. Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam—who has his own plans for reviving rural Virginia with "new-collar" jobs—might want to take note. The Trump administration, which has proposed shutting down the Appalachian Regional Commission, also recently announced that it would be cutting $100 million in grants for teen pregnancy prevention. This promptly led to an epidemic of pearl-clutching at media outlets that think the surest cure for any problem is a tractor-trailer full of somebody else's money. But as The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway pointed out, the programs funded by the grants are remarkably ineffective. The Department of Health and Human Services' own analysis found that many of them either (a) did not reduce rates [...]



NYC Government Spends $2 Million on a Park Bathroom

Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:15:00 -0400

Did you see the $2 million dollar bathroom? That's what New York City government spent to build a "comfort station" in a park. I went to look at it. There were no gold-plated fixtures. It's just a little building with four toilets and four sinks. I asked park users, "What do you think that new bathroom cost?" A few said $70,000. One said $100,000. One said, "I could build it for $10,000." They were shocked when I told them what the city spent. No park bathroom needs to cost $2 million. An entire six-bedroom house nearby was for sale for $539,000. Everything costs more when government builds it. "Government always pays above-average prices for below-average work," says my friend who makes a living privatizing government ahctivities. Obamacare's website was supposed to cost $464 million. It cost $834 million and still crashed. Washington, D.C.'s Visitor Center rose in cost from $265 million to $621 million. The Veterans Affairs medical center being built near Denver was projected to cost $590 million. Now they estimate $1.7 billion Government spends more because every decision is tied up in endless rules. Rigid specs. Affirmative action. Minority outreach. Wheelchair access. "The process is designed to prevent any human from using judgment, or adapting to unforeseen circumstances," says Philip Howard of the government reform group Common Good, adding, "The idea of a commercial relationship, based on norms of reasonableness and reciprocity, is anathema." But New York City's bureaucrats are unapologetic about their $2 million toilet. The Parks Department even put out a statement saying, "Our current estimate to build a new comfort station with minimal site work is $3 million." "$3 million?!" I said to New York City Parks Commissioner Mitchell Silver, incredulously. "New York City is the most expensive place to build," he replied. As a result, "$2 million was a good deal." I pointed out that entire homes sell for less. He said, "We built these comfort stations to last... Look at the material we use compared to that of a home. These are very, very durable materials." They have to be, he says, because the bathroom gets so much use. "We're going to expect thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of visitors... So we have to build it to last." Yet not far away, Bryant Park has a bathroom that gets much more use. That bathroom cost just $300,000. Why the difference? Bryant Park is privately managed. New York politicians also order contractors to pay "prevailing" wages. That usually means union wages, and that adds 13-25 percent to all bills. When I asked Commissioner Silver about that, he said, "This is a city that does believe strongly in labor." New York Democrats act as if "labor" means union labor. It's an insult to laborers. Most don't belong to unions. Unions, however, fund Democrats' campaigns. Since government spends other people's money, they don't care that much about cost and they certainly don't care much about speed. Many Parks Department projects are years behind schedule. Commissioner Silver says he's made improvements. "We've now saved five months out of what used to be four years." "That's still terrible!" I said. "We believe strongly in engaging the public," he replied. "We have a process that includes design, procurement and construction." But so does the private sector, which gets the job done faster. Silver added: "[Privately managed] Bryant Park did a renovation... We do it from the ground up!" But no one forced the city to build from the ground up. Anyway, renovation can cost as much as new construction. Governments just spend more. Sometimes, people get so fed up that they take matters into their own hands. Toronto's government es[...]