Congress’ “Culture of Spending”
American humorist Will Rogers once said, “I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.” One need look no further than to the U.S. Congress for the proof of that wisdom.
The Cato Institute published a Policy Analysis in July 2006 entitled. “Budgeting in Neverland: Irrational Policymaking in the U.S. Congress and What Can Be Done about It” Written by James Payne, a political scientist, he was "interested in the way that Congress decides on spending levels for different programs and agencies of the federal government.” In studying the Congressional appropriations process, he wrote:
“I discovered that Congress was not following a balanced and objective process. I learned that the advocates of higher spending overwhelmed all aspects of congressional communications, including formal hearings, private personal contacts, reports and studies, meetings with constituents, phone calls, and letters . . . Members of Congress virtually never heard that particular programs were unsound, unfair, wasteful, or counterproductive. Lawmakers lived in a ‘culture of spending.’”
Following is the study’s executive summary (For the entire Policy Analysis 574, click here -- both require Adobe Reader):
“Many Americans are disappointed by the huge amounts of money Congress spends, but that’s not the real problem. The real problem is the profoundly irrational system Congress uses to decide how much to spend.
“The basic requirement for intelligent decision- making is to hear arguments and evidence from both sides of an issue. Congress ignores this requirement in its budget-making process. Instead of hearing both the pros and the cons of spending on particular programs, Congress usually hears from only the self-interested supporters of programs. Those biased advocates of spending typically include federal program administrators, whose careers depend on making their programs look good, and lobbyists paid by program beneficiaries to promote programs.
“The avalanche of one-sided propaganda in favor of federal programs creates a false picture for policymakers. They live in a Neverland where federal spending programs are routinely portrayed as necessary, helpful, and effective. The result is that Congress continues to fund, decade after decade, many programs that are wasteful and harmful.
The corrective is for Congress to adopt measures to balance the decision-making process by hearing from opponents of spending programs. “The committees that oversee spending should routinely invite critics of programs to participate in the congressional information-gathering process. Another reform idea is to create a federal “office of taxpayer advocacy” charged with voicing the taxpayer interest when Congress considers program funding decisions. Such procedural reforms are needed if Congress is to get spending under control and begin making serious tradeoffs regarding priorities in the federal budget.
Read the entire study, and the concern of Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth blog and Andrew Moylan at the National Taxpayers Union blog, Government Bytes, becomes fully understandable. A fiscally responsible Congress? Hardly! Possible? That would undoubtedly be wishful thinking.
With Christmas fast approaching, here is a William Warren cartoon (used with permission):
