The Defenders of Pork are preparing for battle, now that McCain has put pork in the center of the political debate. Joel Achenbach, in an article on the front page of today's Washington Post ("McCain sees Pork where Scientists See Success; Candidate Criticizes Ambitios Bear Study"), reports on a $3 million federal study to collect bear DNA in Montana; the study, which has been the subject of a number of McCain ads ridiculing the expenditure, turns out, according to many scientists quoted, to have been a major success, money well spent.
Now, I actually am a big fan of spending federal money to study bear DNA -- seriously. I spent a number of years, some time ago, as a wildlife biologist, and I am quite willing to believe that this was a useful study that collected important and valuable data on the genetics of the grizzly bear. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is: we have a specialized agency (many of them, actually) that hands out money for worthy research projects -- it's called the National Science Foundation, and it funds many, many worthy projects. May it long continue to do so; I've got no problem with Congress increasing the NSF's budget. The problem is that there are thousands of worthy research projects out there, and CONGRESS should not be deciding which ones are worthy of support and which aren't. That's the problem with pork and earmarks and the rest -- not that they don't ever do any good, but that the law-making process cannot possibly decide between the good projects and the bad ones, and will, inevitably, make those decisions on the wrong (i.e on political) grounds.
In the same way, Senators can 'blue card' a nomination, or 'object on behalf of a colleague' to a consent request, etc, and not have to have their name on their actions.
I wonder if this had been a market project rather than a government project, if somebody would have found a cheaper way to count bears.
So your ends justifies the theft of my means?
And NSF grants are not political? Government grants are by their nature political, i.e., based on favoritism and pull.
PM: I tend to agree in principle with you as well, but I think the criticism is misplaced here -- the bear study wasn't slipped into the budget but was openly championed by Sen. Burns.
AA: It's hard to see how a market in bear counting could be established. I have a feeling the result would be, "For $5mm, how many bears do you want?"
I thought that's exactly what Congress IS supposed to do. This is still a republic, isn't it?
agree with mark field-bad idea..lets not give non elected officials MORE power decide where to spend our tax money.
And why, pray tell, is research into bear DNA so important? In case a bear commits a crime and DNA will vindicate his innocence? I mean, other than scientists who specialize to an absurd degree, who really cares about this, and how is it beneficial to the public (i.e. taxpayers who foot the bill) at large?
If the government did not fund this specific project, would a private or corporate entity fund it? If not, doesn't that suggest it is not worth the money necessary to carry it out?
Considering the recent perfomance of the stock market, that's a very serious blunder on his part.
Full Disclosure: I have successfully applied for and administered earmarks and competitive grants for various public health programs. I liked the earmarks because they required less meaningless, costly hoop jumping that distracted from the mission of our programs. I recognize that in theory competitive grants are preferrable because they provide better accountability, but let's not kid ourselves. Many competitive grant programs provide only the illusion of accountability because the performance measures have nothing to do with efficacy and they consistently underfund evaluation.
Those were grizzly bears, and I’m not surprised it would cost a lot to get samples. That’s a small number scattered about a large territory. The question isn’t whether Grizzly bear DNA is not a worthwhile project, it’s whether more or less worthwhile than something that didn’t get funding. At one time high-energy particle physics ate up most of the NSF money because they need large expensive accelerators. Finally other scientists screamed, “How about us?” The big super conductor super collider project got terminated.
Getting back to grizzlies, I’m not sure that as a taxpayer I really care if the grizzlies go extinct. I don’t think I would miss them. Obviously many people do care, but then they should fund grizzly bear research themselves. This is a difficult area of public policy. When is it ok to force people to pay for something that they don’t care about, especially when the social benefit is minimal to zero? Some of these interests amount to a kind of theological pursuit.
If Congress wants to appropriate $200 million for the NSF, they can do that. And how the $200 million will be spent winds up in the discretion of the NSF. Similarly, if Congress wants to appropriate $195 million for the NSF and $5 million for the NSF to be used to study bear DNA, they can do that too. And in that case, for that $5 million, it is the elected legislature who is deciding how the taxpayers' money gets spent.
Now, where I think earmarks are vulnerable to criticism is in exactly the place Paul Milligan identifies in his response. Many times, these earmarks do not go through the normal budgeting process, where members of Congress have an opportunity to vote on them. That becomes much more problematic.
Those NSF scientists, while dependent on Congress for funding, do work their best to get the right (i.e., scientifically accurate) answer. They are not beholden to voters because most voters do not have an adequate understanding of the issues at hand. Instead, those voters can and are stampeded into decisions based on factors other than the science: Alar, silicone breast implants, stem cell research... any of that ring a bell?
And while executive agencies are not immune to political pressure from the executive, complaints about that pressure change with whomever is today's executive. Congressional pressure, through budgets, is far more insidious as it is far less transparent.
While bears are not my thing, I don't doubt that the research is of value. Even the amount spent in this instance may be good value. But because the funding comes through a political vetting system rather than a scientific vetting system, it unbalances what should be an as-objective-as-possible routine.
I'll absolutely give more trust to a medical decision coming out of NIH than I will one coming from a Congressman with a bunch of activist constituents hounding his phone or in-box, in the same way I prefer a board certified surgeon working on me than a typical member of Congress.
Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils...
Sucks to live in the real world, I know.
In this case - I expect that, to the extent any change in actual funded research resulted, it was just a to substitute the study of bear DNA instead of some other mammal; and the improved knowledge of biology (with the resuling improved understanding of the world with potential flow-down to improved medicine) is largely unchanged by Congressional action.
The most egregious, I think, are the agricultural subsidies, going primarily to a small number of companies. But earmarks are right up there. For the most part, they seem to be money designed to get some politician reelected, providing nothing for the rest of us.
I don't really like giving all that money away through grants through, for example, the NSF, because the granting organizations are almost as susceptible to capture as are members of Congress. But at least there is some consideration of merit there, whereas there is none with earmarks. Rather, the later are just pure pork barrel spending.
Also, am I to understand that counting bears or studying bear DNA both constitute the regulation of "Commerce...among the several States"?
Better yet, those states which take the pork expenditures should pay more federal income tax than those states which do not. Pretty soon citizens will stop yelling for more projects. The way it is right now, the pork recipients are getting a good deal.
A few years ago I was in a biochem lab, and it was breast cancer. We were studying protein reactions and integrins, mostly very basic research on certain enzymes and proteins of interest to the PI and whether they were expressed in epithelial or myoepithelial cells. Her primary interest was in these proteins and their pathways. She had to spin everything as relevant to breast cancer though. And it might have been - but boy did we stretch that research out of shape to make it sound relevant.
But, hey - people want their money to go to curing disease. That would happen whether its congress, NIH or private funding, probably.
Pork bad.
Discuss?
On that basis, you should take every decision out of the hands of the voters and give it to some bureaucratic expert. Most voters do not have an adequate understanding of the issues the President will face once elected, so the President clearly should not be beholden to voters!
Given that some lawmakers can't even be troubled to read the bills they sponsor (see e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo), the amount of faith I have that Congress, as a proxy for the interests of the American people, actually focuses on this stuff is slim to none.
On the contrary: He's angling for the privacy conscious bear vote.
(On the Earmarks vs. NSF debate)
Most Congresscritters brag openly about their pork and make it a selling point.
One of the underestimated reasons (gerrymandering aside) that incumbents get reelected so often (98% IIRC) is that senior members of Congress get more pork and so if you throw out the incumbent you have to 'start over' which can mean millions lost.
Thus, you can have pork that is not a real earmark, for example, farm subsidies. But I don't see earmarks that aren't pork.
You have convinced me of precisely the opposite of what your position happens to be. At least there is SOME accountability for elected officials -- there is none for these unelected overseers of these agencies. While they may be better positioned to make good decisions, they are also unanswerable and therefore unreliable.
The peer/panel review is required by law, and if the recommendation of a panel is not followed, lengthy and painful justification is required. A panel member who saw their recommendations ignored would raise holy hell.
The professional administrators and program officers at NSF are beholden to the laws and regs setup by Congress and NSF to govern the review process. They hold a public trust and are liable for their jobs and more if they fail to uphold it. Thank God they're not "answerable" to the whims of their majority constituencies about their decisions to fund X or Y. Where do you think the incentive to create earmarks comes from? (Hint: What have you done for me lately?)
Everyone that I have met at NSF seemed highly committed to NSF's mission and process. Sure, I've heard (and made!) complaints about some of the things NSF funds, but at least the process is out in the open, reviewed, and not hard-wired to funnel money to particular research groups. You can't really say that for earmarks.
Alkali: $3M is nowhere near the max NSF grant amount. We have a $59M grant (total over the 4-year life including $30M to buy a big computer). I think that anything over $5M (or something like that) has to be run past the National Science Board for its approval. They meet every couple of months or so.
If Congress voted separately on each earmark, it would be different (and entirely unwieldy).
Yet despite the astronomical cost, Newsom still insists that he intends to go ahead with this pork-filled money burning project, while other projects are delivering energy at one-tenth the cost.
That's about what guided bear hunt costs and these researchers don't pay the license fees and the like that hunters pay.
I think the science community takes these things pretty seriously, too. There's less of an incentive to be dishonest when you're only trying to keep a few grad students fed. I can see how the executive branch bidding process can get out of hand when a direct profit motive is involved (no-bid contracts in the DoD: I'm looking at y'all!).
I disagree. Pork is actually one type of earmark.
Earmarks are any specific appropriation.
Pork is an earmark that does not go through the committee process and/or is added to an appropriations bill at the last minute.
My argument would be that it is appropriate for Congress to earmark money, but that it should be done using a process, so as to better insure against corruption (although there is no way to really insure against corruption).
So, generally, I would say that earmarks are fine and good.
But pork, i.e., one type of earmark, is bad.
The difference between the elected mayor of SF and a career man at NSF is pretty immense. It's easily as big as between the NSF guy and a US Congressman. While the mayor is technically an "executive", he's not an equivalent decision-maker to the NSF career guy. I'm not sure your example is relevant at all to the merits of pork/earmark spending vs. NSF grant spending.
I'm glad I clicked on "comments." When I first saw this post I thought it was about a study of the rare Ambitios Bear breed.
Really, I'm not making this up. For a few seconds there I thought there was such a thing. I need to get out more.
excellent post.
Taxpayers who are not the beneficiaries of special interest money [most of us, on balance] are the sheep, discussing with the wolves -- Obama, Hillary, and McCain -- what to have for lunch.
Who represents the average taxpayer over their money grubbing special interests?? Do any of them?
The system is badly broken because while most Americans are busy working, paying taxes, and raising a family, the political system has been thoroughly gamed by a minority that has learned how to stack the deck in their favor.
As the campaign unfolds, just watch the bidding for special interest votes at the expense of much higher taxes for Mr. & Mrs. Joe Schmoe -- who will get nothing out of the bidding, except a bigger tax bill.
I disagree about the minority "gaming the system". By definition impossible in a majority-rules democracy. Just ask the average suburban voter and 50/50 they'll say they support the large entitlement programs which make up 80% of the budget. Arguing about pork is trifles.
I guess I didn't make clear enough that the minority in this case is the axis of politicians and special interests. This thread is titled, PORK. Entitlement programs such as social security aren't quite the same subject [not that politicians haven't gamed the system there, too. Your Social Security Account Number [SSAN] doesn't actually refer to an account of yours with money in it; that money has already been spent on lots of other things].
Sorry I didn't make clear which 'minority' I was referring to. It's the minority that conspires to raise our taxes, in return for zero benefit for most taxpayers. As pointed out above, if an extremely wealthy special interest like the Sierra Club wants to save some bears, or spotted owls, or snail darters, they certainly have ample means. Instead, they connive with "our representatives" to force open our wallets ever wider [and often based on trumped-up data].
Can anyone tell us when this gaming the system will end? Maybe it will come to its conclusion with the new XTRA-EZ Form 1040:
1. How much did you earn last year?
2. Send it in.
For examples of the real problem with pork see here.
California is a community property state, so Feinstein is enriching herself directly by enriching her husband.
See, they've learned to game the system. And as corrupt as they are, what is ever done to correct the problem? Where is that branch of government that should be sending them to the slammer?
I note that Rep. Wm Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 in $100 marked F.B.I. bills in his freezer, is still free as a bird.
What would have happened to one of us, if we were caught in similar circumstances?
While I too dislike pork, I'm not sure that this is a good example of it.
Pork = dropping a frog into a pot of boiling water. Entitlements = starting the frog off in cold water
***********
See *here* for details how a majority system can be gamed.
This study has the potential to save the government money as the point of the study was to figure out how many bears there are. As they are currently endangered and there is some cost associated with that, if they are removed from the list (the study found more bears than they expected) then money will be saved.
Granted, this is more common in parliamentary systems where the plurality-but-not-majority party must barter its way to a government (Shas, the ultra-religious part in Israel is a prime example of this, whoring itself out to anyone for religious funding and exemptions), but our two-party system also has the unscrupulous centrists that will horse-trade anything for a few million dollars sent back home to the district.
An aversion to pork in its less legitimate incarnations can be best accomplished by the very style of political contentiousness epitomized by McCain's complaint about bear DNA studies. While the 'bridge to nowhere' is the perhaps the best example of this political response, the idea that you, as a former wildlife biologist, think he is off the reservation is a suitable response although I remain unmoved - despite believing that Burns had quite suitable grounds for seeking such research that redound far beyond 3 million bucks to send guys chasing bears. (Which isn't to say that,if collecting Bear DNA were a more regular activity, that the market couldn't come up with a less costly approach).
As to the substantive, rather than political/procedural criticisms of pork such as this, I have to apply a more ambiguous interpretation.
e.g. THE GENERAL:
In the abstract an exceedingly fair criticism, but the subtext that neither your nor the POSTer seem to acknowledge is the gross invasion of individual prerogative already enabled under the comerce power you belittle by statutes that offend liberty in word and practice leaps and bounds beyond anything the Patriot Act could possibly envision
So Conrad Burns responds to the economic crippling of his state with an earmark for money to potentially demonstrate that the state doesn't have to be shut down and locked up in order to protect genetic diversity amongst grizzly bears.
I think that is a pretty reasonable response to the sad fact that anyone could think the genetics of grizzly bear populations gives some national prerogative to economically strangle a state. I can't fault McCain for looking for convenient seemingly bizarre pork for his campaign to highlight, rather I fault him for being a supporter of the technocratic unaccountable 4th branch spawned by such ill considered unconstitutional pap as the ESA.
But noone gets that, or they are glad that Montana is being made into their park so they are willing to turn a blind eye to constitutional infirmities in their open space shemes, so we argue about pork to study bear DNA as some kind of serious deciding factor in the presidential election. sadly, it might be the best we have to go on.
Brian