A news story and op-ed in the Washington Post recently noted that about 35 million Americans, or more than 10% of the population, are “food insecure.” It sounds like there is a massive underclass of people in the nation who are so poor that they can’t get enough to eat and are going hungry. No doubt that is the idea that many articles want to put across on the reader.
More evidence that when the government says a project will cost $1, taxpayers will end up paying $2 or more.
The Washington Post notes that Congress is considering further funding of a Navy ship program: ”The congressional action followed months of delays as costs ballooned. The cost for the initial two ships was estimated at about $220 million each but now appear to cost up to double that.”
Washington Post, September 18: “The Democratic Congress is considering 2008 spending bills that increase funding for politically popular programs….”
Washington Post, September 19: “With a difficult war debate looming and presidential vetoes for a host of popular legislation….”
Washington Post, September 20: “Republicans and Democrats in the [Virginia] General Assembly proposed election-year spending increases for popular programs….”
Notice any pattern?
The Washington Post is a great paper, but like many papers it reveals a pro-spending bias when it reports on government budget issues. One aspect of this is the common portrayal of any increase or cut as affecting “popular programs.” Every type of program is portrayed as “popular,” whether it provides benefits to 50% of Americans or just 0.05% of Americans.
Presumably, Post reporters don’t do a public poll to find out which programs really are ”popular.” Instead, they just automatically stick the word in stories to perhaps suggest, “Ohhh, policymakers better not cut spending on that one or else there will be hell to pay.”
Sallie James hit the nail on the head in her blog post today: ”business deals, and not formally negotiated trade agreements, are driving globalization.”
That made me think of this Deutsche Post webpage I came across.
It sounds spectacular: The world’s largest shipping and logistics hub at the world’s largest airport, all in low-tax, freewheeling Dubai.
America used to do great stuff like this. But while we’ve still got a moribund and bloated government postal service, Germany’s privatized Deutsche Post seems to be at the leading edge in global shipping and business services. We’ve got congested, government-owned, and union-dominated seaports, while Dubai will be host to a huge and efficient intermodal system.
America still has lots of world-beating companies such as FedEx and Intel. The problem is in Washington: federal policymakers sit on their hands doing little to improve economic productivity while ambitious upstarts such as Dubai and Ireland are providing more freedom and more opportunity for businesses to grow.
The August 13 Time cover story on Katrina begins:
The most important thing to remember about the drowning of New Orleans is that it wasn’t a natural disaster. It was a man-made disaster, created by lousy engineering, misplaced priorities and pork-barrel politics.
I blogged about the arrogance of some members of Congress during last week’s farm debate in the House.
Let me add to Sallie’s observations on the House farm bill battle.
I watched the action on CSPAN over the pro-reform Kind/Flake amendment and was really struck by the arrogance of the anti-reform members. They repeatedly said essentially: “How dare members like Flake criticize the hard work of the Agriculture Committee — he’s not on the committee, he’s not a farmer, and so what does he know about farming!”
You often need a crisis, real or imagined, to get major policy changes enacted. There are two looming challenges in our backwards and bureaucratic air traffic control system that might nudge Congress toward reform. The first is that the government system is having a hard time keeping up with the continued growth in air travel.
The second, as Government Executive magazine reports today, is that a large group of controllers are nearing retirement and the government might have a hard time finding replacements.
These challenges add to the woes of the Federal Aviation Administration, which has mismanaged the air traffic control (ATC) system for decades. The FAA has struggled to modernize ATC technology in order to improve safety and expand capacity. Its upgrade projects are often behind schedule and far over budget, according to the Government Accountability Office. (Discussed in here).
Privatization of U.S. air traffic control is long overdue. During the past 15 years, more than a dozen countries have partly or fully privatized their ATC, and provide some good models for U.S. reforms.
My toddlers have recently been having fun with the phrase “liar, liar, pants on fire.” I’d like to set them loose on the farm bill debate in Congress.