Capitol Ideas

By GW

March 21, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

There has to be some pork because special projects would not exist without state tax dollars. Local governments can’t afford it. There needs to be some system to limit the pork and determine where the money is spent in a fair way. It shouldn’t be left up to whose legislator is the most experienced politician or the slickest at grabbing money. Ballfield lights, band uniforms and the like are a stretch. Public safety, infrastructure and schools first. Don’t build ballfields and pay state troopers chicken feed while they work shorthanded. I’m not a trooper.

By Lee

March 21, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

What a leading question…”the state would pay for an $8 million expansion of the river walk in Savannah, where tourism brings millions each year to city and county tax coffers”…don’t the tourists also add millions to state coffers as well? When will the AJC learn that Atlanta is not the only city in Georgia?

By MrLiberty

March 21, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

There is not one reason why anyone should have to pay for any government project through the mechanism of taxation.

The premise of all of this is that it is ok for some people in one part of the state to get the legislature to steal money from people in other parts of the state on their behalf. If these same people came to me with a gun in their hand and attempted to do the same thing it would be called theft. Somehow when the legislature does it is isn’t. Sorry, it is the same immoral act and those who benefit from it are criminals as much as the legislators who carry out the crime. In essence that makes all of us criminals, but is doesn’t make it any more right.

I see in one post the belief that special projects would never happen with this form of theft. So what? How does stealing make it ok? Whatever happened to local private investment? Whatever happened to creative local fundraising? If an attraction in Savannah is that worthwhile, then let some local business build and own it and make a profit with it.

Our legislators feel that it is thier job to steal and spend because the citizens of this state have told them so. It has to stop. Stealing from others to get something you feel you “must have” sends the message to the rest of society, our kids, etc. that this behavior is ok. Is it any real wonder that our nation is the way it is?

There is not a single activity that government is involved in nor facility that government “owns” that couldn’t be done better, cheaper and faster by private business - including road building and operation. It is only because we have allowed our elected officials to convince us that they must have their hands all over these tasks. Remember, they are really the ones benefitting financially from having government involved.

By Kev

March 21, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

I wonder how many times taxpayers from across the state have helped to fund local projects that benefit Metro Atlanta. Hmmm. Anyone, anyone….?

By MrLiberty

March 21, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

I have no doubt that the rest of the state has been victimized and stolen from more times than can be counted in order to fund waste in Atlanta. Doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it right to make the theft go in the other direction.

When are we ever going to give up the tired argument that “it benefits everyone” as an excuse for organized theft from everyone. IT NEVER BENEFITS EVERYONE! It benefits certain businesses. It benefits certain drivers, it benefits certain politicians, it benefits certain constituent groups who live off the theft of money from others. For all of these groups I say too bad.

When Kroger builds a store near me there are a lot of people who benefit. Everyone who shops there helps pay for that benefit a little with each product they buy. Its called “cost”, and it is the only truly fair way to both pay for things and to get everyone who truly benefits to appreciate the actual cost of the ammenity. The liklihood of support through sales is also the only metric that should be evaluated when considering whether the project is worthwhile. There is absolutely no reason why any other project has to be different. The cost may come in parking fees, admission costs, fee for service, etc., but in this way, those who benefit pay - period.

What’s so hard to understand about that? Why are people never willing to choose the option that increases or maximizes freedom and personal responsibility???

Any program based on theft is morally bankrupt from the start. Further, it leads to projects that run overbudget, are underutilized, and ultimately end up in disrepair. The list of these types of government ventures is far too numerous to cover in such a short blog as this.

By freedom_is_responsibility

March 21, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Mr. Liberty is right. We are all victims of these projects and the perp is the government. Local, State, or Federal. Is it our government’s responsibility to forcefully take money from our pockets to spend on a riverwalk, or a $75 million dollar package to atract a NASCAR museum. Anyone that disagrees, i suggest you, a.)dont disagree with someone as obviously brilliant as Mr. Liberty, and b.) read “The Law” by Frederick Bastiat. Maybe then you can understand why government is a “necessary evil” and is overstepping its boundaries with every “pork” project.

By JP

March 21, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

What about incentives for companies to locate in Georgia?

Blog and Tan

By sct

March 21, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Hey Mr Liberty, lets see what would happen if all the tax dollars generated by Metro Atlanta STAYED in Metro Atlanta. Lots of crying and whining from all the other parts of Georgia guarenteed. Lets start with the gasoline tax…..

By MrLiberty

March 21, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Here’s an even better idea. Let’s see how much whining and gnashing of teeth we get if all of us just kept our tax dollars in our pockets! Face it, the legislators would scream louder than the folks in Tifton. You know there are states with no income tax. There are states with no sales tax. We of course have both.

What if instead of whining about why the rest of us aren’t being stolen from for their benefit the citizens of these rural locations just sat back and enjoyed the fact that they cannot afford more government intrusion into their lives.

Please tell me what government does in rural areas that should cost so much money. A huge city hall? Get rid of the city government. A huge library nobody uses? Try a private loan/fee operation instead. Police services? Private security forces that are shared by multiple municipalities - or maybe even a volunteer force (works for fire departments). Fire departments? Volunteer.

Just think how much more money all of these rural folks would have to provide these services for themselves without taxation as well.

Remember, its not that these services all go away, they just get done by private companies who must compete for the dollars that are voluntarily paid. Fire service could just as easily be by subscription (and required by your mortgage lender).

And then there is charity. There is certainly no reason why any of the millions of folks who live in the metro Atlanta area would not want to send their VOLUNTARY contributions to help out a smaller community in need. No one would stop them.

By MrLiberty

March 21, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Here’s an even better idea. Let’s see how much whining and gnashing of teeth we get if all of us just kept our tax dollars in our pockets! Face it, the legislators would scream louder than the folks in Tifton. You know there are states with no income tax. There are states with no sales tax. We of course have both.

What if instead of whining about why the rest of us aren’t being stolen from for their benefit the citizens of these rural locations just sat back and enjoyed the fact that they cannot afford more government intrusion into their lives.

Please tell me what government does in rural areas that should cost so much money. A huge city hall? Get rid of the city government. A huge library nobody uses? Try a private loan/fee operation instead. Police services? Private security forces that are shared by multiple municipalities - or maybe even a volunteer force (works for fire departments). Fire departments? Volunteer.

Just think how much more money all of these rural folks would have to provide these services for themselves without taxation as well.

Remember, its not that these services all go away, they just get done by private companies who must compete for the dollars that are voluntarily paid. Fire service could just as easily be by subscription (and required by your mortgage lender).

And then there is charity. There is certainly no reason why any of the millions of folks who live in the metro Atlanta area would not want to send their VOLUNTARY contributions to help out a smaller community in need. No one would stop them.

By Rick

March 21, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Public funds should not be used to bring in companies like KIA. Why should the state subsidize great jobs and good pay that just benefit a few of its citizens?

By Lee

March 22, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

The incentives offered by the state are far outweighed by the revenues created over time. The same goes for many of these projects MrLiberty is so upset about. The Riverwalk in Savannah will cost the state $8 million dollars but how much revenue did River Street just make for the state off of tourists going there for St. Patrick’s Day this past weekend? Multiply the annual state tax revenue created by River Street and mutliply it by the expected life span of the new Riverwalk. I guarantee you the $8 million will be returned ten-fold to the state in the next 20 years.

Don’t get me wrong, I hate taxes and pork as much as the next guy, but if the state is going to spend money on projects, they need to be solid investments. We as citizens should demand a return on those investments.

By Lee

March 22, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

The incentives offered by the state are far outweighed by the revenues created over time. The same goes for many of these projects MrLiberty is so upset about. The Riverwalk in Savannah will cost the state $8 million dollars but how much revenue did River Street just make for the state off of tourists going there for St. Patrick’s Day this past weekend? Multiply the annual state tax revenue created by River Street and mutliply it by the expected life span of the new Riverwalk. I guarantee you the $8 million will be returned ten-fold to the state in the next 20 years.

Don’t get me wrong, I hate taxes and pork as much as the next guy, but if the state is going to spend money on projects, they need to be solid investments. We as citizens should demand a return on those investments.

By anna

March 22, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

When my son was in high school, the atheletic director had all the parents write legislators involved with this about need for high school stadium. You guessed it. We got the dollars

By anna

March 22, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

All the local high schools in metro (big ones anyway) got their new stadiums from this pork barrel. All parents of atheletes at our school were told who and wwhat to write to get money

By MrLiberty

March 22, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Lee,

First of all let’s look at your last comments. “…they need to be solid investments. We as citizens should demand a return on those investments.”

Please explain for everyone how “we” do that.

Is it through the election process that is so rigged most incumbents run un-opposed? Is it by suing the losers who voted for the project (they are immune from prosecution by law by the way)? Just how do we “demand” anything from the jerks we elect?

You may not like the free market (though you are alive, well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed, and too many well-… to name because of it), but its beauty lies in two things - its voluntary nature and its ability to provide necessary signals to all who participate.

How does one know if a project will yield sufficient return? First one must start with cost. For the state, cost doesn’t matter. They are stealing from all of us, so the sky is the limit. I know that sounds like a smart a** comment, but seriously there is no real limit to how much they might spend. In a free market, there are investors, owners, and the like who must be “sold” on the concept. They are provided a prospectus that shows estimates of cost, projected returns, plans for revenue generation, etc. If the plan is good, then they might invest and the plan goes forward. If not, no river walk, etc. Politicians have no stake whatsoever. Its not their money to lose. They really don’t care about returns (and if they are lied to about the planners there is no real consequence anyway), and they are typically looking to please some constituency anyway, so reality is generally not a big concern. And what does a good return look like anyway?

In the free market, if the project is a failure, you and I aren’t out a penny, unless we voluntarily invested in the project. Might this mean that some projects never happen? Sure. But which is worse, letting someone else have to be accountable for profits and losses, or stiffing the taxpayer.

The better question really should be what business does government have being in the business of profits and losses? Is “running a successful business” really why we elected these clowns? And where does this revenue and “return” come from anyway? Our pockets again.

Look at the comments from Anna. There are even organized efforts for begging and stealing of monies. All these elected types really care about is robbing peter to pay paul (or Anna and her c-conspirators in crime). Is thie really the best way to make sure these are good investments?

By Lee

March 22, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

First of all, I am not going to bite on your attempt to drag this discussion on the merits or lack thereof of the legality or the morality of our tax system. Whether you are an advocate for a consumption-based tax - which I would prefer - or the abolition of all state taxes, I don’t care. (By the way, no state is tax free. Some states may not have income taxes or property taxes, but they do get taxes from elsewhere.) The fact of the matter is - we have taxes and they have the force of law behind them. Call for a tax cut and I’ll support your efforts.

There are several ways to voice your concerns over how our tax dollars are spent. One - the ballot box - don’t give me this balogna that elections are rigged. Yes, the system favors incumbents - they have the most money. But the fact that Perdue beat Barnes proves that the elections are not rigged. Democrats were in charge of everything and Barnes had millions more than Perdue, yet Perdue still won. Two - a letter writing or phone call campaign. You would be surprised how few people actually contact their elected representatives. You would be surprised how much the voice of a constituent matters to most State officials. (Federal officials represent a lot more people, so one voice is much much smaller.)

The idea that a letter-writing campaign built high school stadiums is not absurd. The fact that these stadiums will never make a single dollar for the state coffers is the real tragedy. However, for every dollar the state spends on marketing for Georgia Tourism - the state recieves 7 dollars in return. The Georgia World Congress Center makes $500 million dollars a year in revenue for the state and costs the state virtually nothing. The Georgia Ports Authority makes $1.4 Billion (yes, with a B) annually for the state - yet it costs the state virtually nothing. I would venture to say those are good investments - yet you would call them pork.

By MrLiberty

March 22, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Well, we can ignore the moral issues of income taxation but they don’t go away. A tax on income is nothing more than slavery to the state. Excise taxes and other forms of indirect taxation, user fees, and the like are at least income neutral and use based. Property taxation means nothing more than the state actually owns your property.

We can also ignore the ridiculous signature requirements for 3rd parties in this state that have kept 3rd party congressional candidates off the ballot since 1935 and continue to make it nearly impossible for them to even qualify for state house and senate runs, but that wouldn’t make these inequities go away either. forgive me for not settling for the two parties that are soley responsible for all of our political and economic problems, but I prefer to support a party that sticks to sound priciples of freedom and personal responsbility. As for Purdue, we’ll have to wait for the outcome of the numerous lawsuits against Diebold to truly see just how “rigged” elections have now become in this state. My money is on total and complete corruption, but then we are talking about the state here.

We might also consider that we have a “president” who says that he doesn’t listen to “focus groups” (meaning anyone who opposes his viewpoint). Plenty of legislators are the same. Letter writing is fine, but it still doesn’t guarantee anything. But if my money isn’t involved from the beginning, what do I care (free market wins again).

The number of “winners” and “losers” is really not the point. With more time I am sure I could likely counter these billions of positive with billions of losses (the Dawsonville NASCAR museum certainly can’t be a fluke). Where costs are accounted for, etc. would also have to be seen to check the true accuracy of the state’s numbers as well.

Again, the bottom line is whether the state should be a profit center that is in business - business that by the way competes on many levels with private businesses that do not have the ability to steal the money they need for advertising, construction, maintenance, etc. from the general public.

Here we again must get back to the moral issue. If we continue to support such state spending, we are saying that the government is better at deciding how YOUR money would be spent than you. They know better how to spend a businessman’s money than he does, etc. For all the billions you may be able to identify in the plus column for the state, there are untold dollars that can never be recorded in the plus column of the people who worked hard to earn that money.

And what exactly does this money in the state’s account actually mean - more money to buy off constituents, waste on more bureaucracy, enforce more regulations, and violate the rights of more people.

One should never advocate an increase in government size because liberty and government are opposites. An increase in one can only be accompanied by a loss of the other. This was once the foundation of american government and politics, but sadly the level of discourse has been reduced to how taxes should be spent, rather than whether taxes are appropriate or not or whether government should even be allowed to do what it does.

So goes the course of empires.

By MrLiberty

March 22, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

One additional note about PORK.

Lee, you treat the process of interacting with elected officials in a rather benign manner, as if a letter, phone call, or the like really matters. While there are certainly elected folks who do care (please check out anything you can on Congressman Ron Paul of Texas), the reality is that the mechanism of funding these projects naturally sets up a situation for corruption.

You still didn’t address how government is supposed to evaluate a good investment, but I can assure you that the contractors, the real estate folks, the current land owner, the concrete guy, the advertising guy, and every other recipient of the government largess associated with the project will be more than happy to stand up and say its a good investment. In the end, they end up with the profits (some of which they share in the form of campaign contributions, personal support, etc. when election time comes around) no matter how successful or unsuccessful the project may be. Cost overuns, fiscal mismanagement, nepotism and the like are all part of the game that gets played. The current and multiple past mayors of this town in particular have been accused and convicted for such schemes. There is likely not a single airport in the nation without a sordid story - and I am sure they all bring in big bucks for the cities that run them.

The sound economic priciples of free market capitalism (unlike the crony-capitalism or more correctly mercantilism that is really at work in this nation) cannot be trumped by a few socialist successes. Take the bait or not, it all does come down to the morality of the economic system you support.

“Thow shalt not steal.” Sounds like a sound economic principle to me.

By Lee

March 23, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

You libertarians have it pretty easy. They have all the force of rhetoric, yet none of the responsibilities of power.

MrLiberty, even your hero Ron Paul asks for pork.

The fact of the matter is that taxes are the law. Try to get away without paying them and see how quickly you end up in jail. Don’t like the law? There are plenty of other states or even countries you can go to.

Personally, I would like to see taxes lowered if not dropped altogether. However, until that happens, we as citizens should be more concerned with how our tax dollars are spent. Not with empty rhetoric about how the state is stealing from us and owns all our land.

You and I may not see the benefits of a football stadium, but I am sure those local communities do. While they do not contribute to the state’s revenues, neither do schools or jails. Are you going to now tell us that the state shouldn’t be building or funding schools or jails? Police officers don’t contribute to the revenue of the state, should we dump them as well?

By MrLiberty

March 23, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Libertarians would love the responsibility of power. Why don’t you get everyone you know to vote us in and then see where things go. That will never happen because americans are too afraid of freedom and personal responsibility. Like the citizens of the former Soviet Union, they no longer know what it is, or what to do with it.

Here’s a link to Ron Paul’s commentary archives on LewRockwell.com. I think his words speak volumes about his stand on PORK: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html.

Sitting around waiting for taxes to be lowered isn’t going to work. Raising the alternative to government spending at every opportunity is the way. Government types, and obviously most of the general public, just cannot fathom how things can get done without spending tax dollars. Constant education is the only approach until the right people get elected.

And yes, I am now going to tell everyone that the government should not be funding schools and jails. As for jails, let me just say that there are numerous free market proposals for both private security options as well as jails. Fee for service, competition, and the like are all possible alternatives. Ending the war on drugs (actually the war on personal freedom and self-ownership) would create so much space in our current jails that we would not even have to discuss them.

As for schools, the government has absolutely no business educating children. Government schools are an abject failure at educating children, while at the same time an absolute success at indoctrinating the populace to the belief that government is good and must be turned to for the solution to all problems.

Education is a service. It is not as necessary to life as food is, yet we allow the free market to provide everyone food - and our choices, quality, and availability have never been greater. Though I do not support vouchers because I think they will just destroy the private market with all of the regulations they will bring, at least the government recognized their limitations and gives out food stamps rather than attempting to run all aspects of food production and delivery.

Government schools are not about educating the poor. If those were the only kids attending, they would be charity schools and I might be willing to contribute. Government schools are based on the premise that you are unwilling to pay for the education of your children so you use the gun-wielding hand of the state to steal money from me to help you pay. It doesn’t matter that I may have no children and that you may have 10. You only pay a pittance relative to cost while I pay the same (or more if my house cost more) for no services at all.

The extortion argument that these kids would be on the streets is just that, an excuse for extortion. The argument that kids would never get educated is also empty in that it assumes the worst about every parent and assumes that education has so little value that no one would be willing to pay for it.

$10,000 a child may be what wasteful government costs to educate a child, but I can guarantee that in a free market there would be expensive shchools, mid-priced, cheap, and even free schools. The biggest difference would be that there would actually be a real value to education that would be measured in cost. Additionally, if the school did not meet your needs, you could move your child and take your money with you. Then of course there is the best approach - homeschooling.

Hundreds if not thousands of books have been written about not only the methods to get government out of the education business, but about the desperate and urgent need to make it happen before the last vestiges of decent american society are gone. Hopefully the mass exodus into homeshcooling combined with the chronic failures will cause the government education to collapse and then the free market will be the only alternative. Unfortunately this won’t happen soon enough for some kids.

By Lee

March 24, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

Yes, I am sure it’s the fear of freedom that keeps the libertarian party and their “populist” agenda from winning any elections. Please note that I am currently rolling my eyes and making a face.

The problem with Libertarians is that they would rather sit outside of the game and comment about how horrible things are instead of working within the system to change it. Personally, I prefer not screaming at walls, it doesn’t do any good.

Change is much more easily made from inside a system than from the outside.