According to an article published in the LA Times, the stimulus is funding job-creating, shovel-ready projects such as purchasing 1,600 iPods for Utah high school students at a cost of $1 million and providing Blackberries to low-income smokers in Washington, DC who are trying to kick the habit, paid for by a $498,000 grant. The findings are set forth in a report by Senators Tom Coburn and John McCain in which they catalogue frivolous and wasteful stimulus spending. While the sums in question are paltry in light of the $862 billion authorized under the bill, the fact that stimulus funds are being used to buy pimped-up cell phones and other electronic toys for current and future voters raises several disturbing questions.
First, a look at the programs themselves. The iPods were loaded with educational applications such as bird call guides. Students are required to meet certain academic benchmarks in order to keep the devices. As for the DC smokers, the Blackberries will enable the recipients to call a hotline and access software to help them overcome their addiction.
These are laudable goals, to be sure. However, I would posit that this is also old-fashioned, demagogic, third-world vote-buying. This White House is handing out goodies in the hope that the Democratic party will get votes in return. The assumption is not unreasonable. There are people, many in fact, who will harbor feelings of gratitude towards an organization that gives them cool gadgets that confer a certain status above that of their peers, as would be the case with high school students and low-income individuals. These persons will have an incentive to support that generous group with the hope that they will get even more free stuff in the future.
The difference between this vote-buying scheme and run-of-the-mill pork barrel spending lies in the stated intent of the Administration in pushing the stimulus bill. We were regaled here, here, here and here, for example, with stories of all the many shovel-ready infrastructure projects that were simply waiting for some federal dollars to break ground. The American people were told that these programs would create much-needed jobs. The resulting increase in the federal deficit was to be offset by the reduction in unemployment.
As for the two programs described in the LA Times article, the one in Utah resulted in no additional jobs while the DC program did create two positions. Had these programs funded a significant number of jobs, the Democrats would have rightfully earned the support of the beneficiaries and the rest of the American people. It seems however that the programs are mere handouts intended to purchase the loyalty of an electoral block.
While it is disappointing to think that there are voters who will be swayed by an iPod or a Blackberry, the Administration’s cynical view of human nature is probably correct.
Obama understands that some people would rather have their responsibilities taken care of by someone else and that bribes work.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like the programs were instituted by state and local governments, not the federal government. Weren't block grants to the states part of the stimulus?
ReplyDeleteI agree that stimulus money should have been used better (where is my smart electrical grid?), but I don't see this as a sin you can lay at the feet of the Obama administration.
Yes I can. The legislation should have excluded block grants unless the underlying projects created "or saved" jobs. The cost of those jobs whould then be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, and if the jobs were too expensive, such as in the examples above, then the projects would be denied funding and the funds deployed elsewhere. Instead, the money is being used to pay for all sorts of fed, state and local boondoggles. As for vote-buying, living overseas teaches you not to be shocked very easily. The gadget giveaway at the local level with fed funds comes right out of page 2 of the electoral playbook. Here it's shoes, groceries, school supplies, etc. The recipients know who paid for the goods and are thus expected to reciprocate at the ballot box.
ReplyDelete