Pork Barrel Spending Begins At Home
The following is a post that I originally posted on a local Fox News Website. I was curious after all of the posts that I had seen on that site over the past few years against "pork barrel spending" what there reaction would be.....the sound you're not hearing is crickets chirping in the ethernet!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been a while since we've talked about "pork barrel" spending coming out of Washington. But here's an example of how one man's "pork" is another man's "urban renewal".
The General Services Administration (the government agency tasked with controlling rental of government property and purchasing for government) has a decision to make. One of their regional offices is currently housed in an older facility. The once bustling facility was built in the mid-1940's and until recently housed three different divisions of government. Two of those divisions have moved to other areas of the local municipality. The GSA wants to move out as well. They have three options:
A) They could rent from space already built and pay to have the space modified to fit thier requirements. The local municipality has a large number of unoccupied office space in their downtown area.
B) They could also hire a private company to construct a new building to GSA specifications that is owned by the private company and then leased to the GSA.
C) Or they could wait on their move. Submit a proposal to Congress to appropriate the necessary funding to erect a building that is owned and operated by the GSA.
Choice C is actually the cheapest route to take for the federal taxpayers. Over the course of time, it is significantly cheaper to own the building outright than it is to pay for modifications to current available facilities or to pay a middle man to build the building for them.
The problem with choice C is that local politicians want the GSA to move thier operations to a specific location within their city in hopes of continuing a "re-vitalization" of that area. It would bring increased revenues to the area hotels and restaurants. It would be good for the city if the federal government chose (A), but it would also waste federal tax dollars. So it's a form of "pork barrel" spending.
The GSA however, has stood it's ground. They are seriously considering delaying thier move and using option C which would save federal tax dollars at the expense of the local economy.
Is this good or bad? Local politicians from both sides of the aisle have voiced thier preference for choice A. Are they trying to bring home the "bacon" for thier constituents or are they taking "pork" from the rest of the country's tax payers? Which do you prefer and why?
Does it make a difference if you are told that the city in question is Kansas City? That Sens. Bond, McCaskill and Rep. Cleaver are all for "pork barrel spending" in this case. Because it would be good for downtown business. There's a lot of empty spaces sitting around in offices downtown. It would do a lot for the local corporation that rents to them. But everything it does for the local economy will be on the back of the federal tax payer. How do you feel about pork barrel spending now?
One last ethical question for you. Regardless of where you come down on the issue of where the GSA moves, whether you're voting your local dollar or your federal dollar....should Sen. Kit Bond hold up the confirmation hearing of Obama's nominee to head the GSA? Because that's what's happening. Sen. Bond has put a hold on the confirmation hearing of Martha Johnson until she agrees to move the GSA downtown. And that sounds like blackmail to me! Anyone want to explain why that's an ethical move on his part?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are like me and upset with Sen. Bond's hold on Ms. Johnson's confirmation, please feel free to contact him at 202-224-5721.
Spending federal dollars in ways that stimulate local economies is okay with me, even if it costs a bit more.
I'd want to see the life-cycle cost estimates of all the options, including the cost/befefit for the local economy, before deciding on this specific instance, but the general idea of spending federal tax dollars where they do the most good locally is not a bad idea, per se.
But the Senate's practice of allowing any single senator to place an indefinite hold on a presidential appointee is a bad idea.
In this case, it makes want to ask the question of how Sen. Bond and his friends stand to benefit, personally, from the proposed GSA move.
October 23, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does Sen. Bond & his friends stand to benefit...?
WHO DO YOU THINK OWNS THE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE AVAILABLE SPACE DOWNTOWN BUT SUPPORTERS OF KIT BOND?
October 23, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's always the hypocrisy that makes us want to type in capital letters. Politicians and evangelists provide an unending supply of it.
I'd like to see Kit Bond's hold on Johnson's confirmation tied directly to this project and his personal interest in it, in a way that Missouri voters could clearly see what it going on.
I'd also like to see the Senate do away with the tradition of "holds."
That said, I'd still support using a few more federal dollars to locate the new GSA offices where they would do the most good for the local economy.
October 24, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you - it makes sense to do this. But what really irritates me is that the pols involved will deny that government spending stimulates the economy, and likely voted against the stimulus package. Example:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/18/bond-touts-stimulus/
Either government spending works or it doesn't, but politicians shouldn't get to argue both sides at the same time.
October 23, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kit Bond is one of the more repulsive politicians. Maybe the folks from the Show Me state will get their fill of him someday soon, but I'm not holding my breath.
But you're not seriously arguing that politicians have to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths, are you? We'll have to redefine politics if that ever happen.
October 24, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink