The Case Against Porkbusting

This kind of thing is why people are always reaching for the name "Ramesh Ponnuru" when asked to name conservative pundits worth reading. As Scott Lemieux says "this is the central purpose of the Porkbusters campaign: to make difficult choices magically disappear, especially where the Iraq War is concerned." As Ponnuru points out, the world simply doesn't work like that. Conservatives either want to cut some major programs with substantial constituencies, or else they don't really want to cut spending -- pork is neither here nor there in big picture budgetary terms.

Comments

But it can have corruption effects

Posted by m | May 18, 2007 10:26 AM

Pork IS a corruption effect.

Posted by too many steves | May 18, 2007 10:35 AM

I'd argue that pork is a vital lifeline for areas that have been underserved by federal (mostly military) largess throughout past decades. Federal spending is highly correlated to the prosperity of a community. For instance, the SF Bay area was able to attract its private technology investment and large numbers of military contractors precisely because of the presence of military bases nearby who served as a taxpayer-funded customer base. I'd argue that places in which the government has traditionally underspent need to receive dramatically more pork. A region like Appalachia, for example, recieves very little aid in terms of military spending or agricultural subsidies. The fact that the rest of the counrtry begrudges an interstate on-ramp, bridge or courthouse at Bob Byrd's behest is galling considering how little has been spent on the region in the past.

Posted by oljb | May 18, 2007 10:57 AM

Obviously there's nothing wrong with trying to eliminate wasteful spending, although it's dishonest to claim that "pork" automatically equates to "wasteful spending." However, the manner in which this relatively inconsequential effort is bandied about by the bloggers involved (complete with splashy logo!) is what we might refer to as "looking busy."

They're playing politics exactly the way the real politicians play it: look for a boondoggle or two that can be succesfully demagogued, and trumpet the hell out of it to show how you're such a responsible steward of the taxpayer's money. In reality, what they're accomplishing is a big zero.

Posted by Steve | May 18, 2007 11:13 AM

Yeah, but "corruption" isn't some kind of substance that can be flushed out; it is a behavior, due in part to taught character, but largely in response to incentives and a permissive atmosphere. At least, this kind of systemic corruption is likely to have something to do with that.

Posted by Benquo | May 18, 2007 11:14 AM

There's no excuse for not watchdogging porkbarrel projects. Porkbarrel projects are easily recognizable symptoms of corruption -- kickbacks can be hidden in porkbarrel projects, as can rewards for folks who campaigned for a particular candidate.

I agree that those who watchdog porkbarrel spending in order to cut spending by the government are either uninformed about how government works, deluding themselves, or lying. I used to be in the first camp -- I honestly thought at one time that if we just had the pork publicised and outlined there'd be enough incentive to cut spending on frivolous stuff. The older me now realizes that that money will just get moved somewhere else in the same agency -- if the agency administrators are good, it will get spent on good stuff. If they're incompetent, it's likely to be poorly spent. Such is the nature of large organizational management.

But just because it doesn't cut actual spending doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be watched. Good government requires an active citizenry to watch over what the government does and make sure that it's operating for the good of the nation as a whole, and not the good of the politicians and their cronies.

Posted by NonyNony | May 18, 2007 11:17 AM

MY: you are being far too charitable. Ponnuru says,"But that strategy would be dishonest," as if it weren't already the Republican strategy. It isn't like Republicans are going to read Ponnuru's article and realize that they were supposed to be attacking Social Security all along. They tried that and failed. Pork is all you have left to sustain the small government rhetoric.

If Ponnuru put 2 and 2 together, he'd have to come out and say that Republicans are dishonest when they make calls for smaller government.

Posted by Archit | May 18, 2007 11:27 AM

A little demagoging on pork, along with a stern reminder on how small-change an issue it is, might work for a politican like the late '70s Jerry Brown, who once said: "I'm not a fiscal conservative; I'm just cheap."

Posted by CJColucci | May 18, 2007 11:27 AM

"Porkbarrel" spending may not directly increase the federal budget, but it does indirectly increase it. Every dollar out of an agency's budget that gets earmarked for something unnecessary is then not spent on fulfilling the agency's mission. More money is then required. Even if its not immediately granted, during the next budget cycle this shortfall will affect the agency's budget requests, and the congressional spending bill for the year.

Posted by Patrick | May 18, 2007 11:29 AM

Patrick makes a good point: to what extent are budgets increased because of pork? Maybe it isn't strictly substitutional as Ponnuru suggests.

Posted by Gorgle Erf | May 18, 2007 11:42 AM

"If it wasn't for graft, you'd get a very low type of people in politics, men without ambition, jellyfish!"

--Preston Sturges, "The Great McGinty"

IOW, after Claude Rains retired in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Jimmy Stewart's 6 week tenure in office was filled with one low level disappointment after another. He didn't seek a full term.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 18, 2007 12:08 PM

1) In my opinion, right wing bloggers like Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit ) are extremely DECEITFUL when they push the Porkbusters campaign.

These are the same morons who hysterically beat the drums to push us into an unnecessary war in Iraq that has cost us over $200 BILLION and is projected to ultimately cost us over $1 TRILLION when the cost of providing long term care for crippled veterans is taken into account.

Yet these hypocrites rant over a $1 million earmark that benefits REAL Americans. I.e, those common citizens who can get wealthy by being whores and advocates for special interests.

Anyone take a peep into Instapundits TipJar lately? Who , I wonder , has been paying for all that bandwidth the past 5 years?

Posted by Don Williams | May 18, 2007 12:22 PM

Correction: Above post should have read "those common citizens who can NOT get wealthy by being whores and advocates for special interests. "

Posted by Don Williams | May 18, 2007 12:24 PM

Well, I can't answer Patrick's general question. But I don't think he has the right story about agency budget's. Basically, agency's budgets are determined by their ability to extract more money from Congress. This is inter-agency bureaucracy.

My problem with this whole pork doesn't matter idea is that it highlights the problem with democrats that kept me supporting republicans for so long. Wasted money in the federal budget does freak'n matter! I don't care if you cut the budget as a result of eliminating pork or simply spend it on the agency's actual mission, pork is a net drain on our GDP.

At the end of the day, I don't think Patrick's question is all that important. Assuming government agency's are pursuing valuable missions, cutting pork allows that money to spent more efficiently by that agency or spent efficiently by the American people. When Democrats overlook the fact that how you spend money matters, I can see where the Left's historical infatuation with command economies comes from.

Posted by mpowell | May 18, 2007 12:55 PM

Sure waste matters but pork is way down in the list of things to worry about. It is basically like you spending all of some day in January searching your couch to find the change that fell out of your pocket while ignoring a gaping hole in your wall that is causing your heating bill to skyrocket.

And the entire campiagn is a smoke and mirrors effort by the right to keep people from seeing that either taxes need to be raised or stuff cut that people actually care about. Ponnuru is one of the few on the right who is at least honest about it. I disagree with him since his answer is to cut stuff we actually need, but he at least admits it.

Posted by Eric | May 18, 2007 2:46 PM

Oh, but if one reads Robert Novaks' columns, one gets the impression that eliminating earmarks will solve all our budget problems. The notion that Krauthammer is worse then Novak seems to be negated by the arguments on this thread.

Posted by SLC | May 18, 2007 6:55 PM

Novak and Krauthammer definitely give each other a run for the money as worst columnist. It may be one of those things that simply cannot be determined, we don't have the technology to measure differences so slight.

Posted by Eric | May 18, 2007 7:43 PM

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=612

“I don’t object to the goal of bringing such workers here [H1B recipients], even if it causes computer programmers’ wages to drop….” ~ Ramesh Ponnuru

Of course he doesn’t object. Ramesh “Last Chance Armada” Ponnuru hates the real United States, with its British and European past, and wants to turn it into a Calcutta. He has no real loyalty to the original stock of European Americans nor to their well being. Deep down, he’s probably overjoyed when he sees the natives’ wages dropping.

Despite the neocon propaganda, a true nation has always historically been defined by blood and soil, kith and kin. And regardless what people say, they will always act in accordance with this truth. Ponnuru is an outsider, will never be a real Westerner, and thus will always sympathize with the third-world invaders.

Posted by Jason | May 18, 2007 9:09 PM