"The bottom line on this is the left screams for health care programs as long as they aren't the ones paying them. "Bt's comment in one of our threads, couldn't be truer. And combined with the fervor over Universal Health Care, this op-ed I came across hit's quite a few shots out of the park
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lure of other people's moneySTEVEN GREENHUT
Sr. editorial writer and columnist
The Orange County RegisterWatching how my kids spend money, I'm constantly reminded of something rather obvious, but still instructive: They are far less profligate with their own cash than they are with mine. What's 40 bucks for a concert if it comes right out of Dad's wallet? But that same concert is far less of a must-see event if they've got to spring for it out of their own piggy banks. My kids would explain this economic principle with one word: "Duh."
People are much more careful with their own resources than with others' resources or with those resources that are publicly owned. Nevertheless, the general public, and politicians in particular, forget how this lesson applies to everyday life.
Is it surprising that health care costs keep going up the more that people rely on third parties to pay for the bills?
When someone else pays, we become far less concerned about what such a service might cost.The Other People's Money syndrome is even more pronounced when it comes to government officials spending cash out of the vast pool of taxpayer-funded resources.
Politicians have no disincentive to spending OPM. They buy votes from various well-organized constituencies (e.g., public-sector unions, farmers, benefit-seeking corporations, transit riders). H.L. Mencken said that every election is "an advance auction of stolen goods." And so government gets bigger and more free-wheeling in its spending.
We've reached the point where even wastes of hundreds of millions of dollars induce more shrugs than outrage.Here are examples, from just a few days' of newspaper reading.
? The Orange County Transportation Authority put the kibosh on its billion-dollar-plus CenterLine light-rail proposal after a political backlash took place. Rail isn't a horrible idea per se, but the enormous cost in no way could justify the handful of riders who would have used it, especially in a spread-out suburban county where there isn't much suburb-to-inner-city commuting. But the Irvine City Council still holds hopes that transit will one day push people out of their cars and off the freeways. Tuesday it approved its own system that is meant to jump-start the countywide rail proposal. Irvine Councilman Larry Agran gloated Tuesday that the five-mile-long rail line connecting the Great Pork? itself a massive boondoggle and waste of prime public assets ? with the Irvine Spectrum and Irvine train station is "the backbone of a system we need to build upon." This tiny system, by the way, will cost $280 million in tax funds, plus another $7 million a year to operate. And these things always have cost overruns.
"They'd be better off not spending any of this money," Charles Lave, a UCI professor emeritus of economics, told a Register reporter before the vote. He accused the council of behaving "like teenagers" who are looking for ways to spend all their money. But, then again, the current political system is set up in a way that encourages every politician to behave, financially, like a teenager. (Irvine council members also are still giddy over a costly orange balloon that people can float in above the not-quite-park, which makes them more like schoolchildren than teenagers, but I digress.)
? Another local elected body, the Garden Grove City Council, for years has acted not just like any teenager, but like one who has broken into the liquor cabinet. The best way to understand Garden Grove is to watch the movie, "The Music Man," in which a huckster comes to River City and sells the local rubes a bill of goods. Garden Grove's council members are the rubes ? desperate to put their city on the map, and to lure the kind of destination project that will solve their self-inflicted financial problems.
In 2006, council members were excited at an $8 billion plan by a Korean businessman to put a theme park, hotel and shopping mall in the heart of town. "One developer proposed a replica of the London Bridge across a faux river," reported the Los Angeles Times. "Another pitched Music City RiverWalk, a music-themed entertainment complex, and Middle Eastern investors proposed a cultural center for the late King Hussein of Jordan." Then there was the theme-park idea, which would have been built on a nice middle-class neighborhood that would have been cleared away by eminent domain. And city officials continue to dream about luring an Indian casino onto Harbor Boulevard. Most of these projects would be backed with large doses of tax dollars and tax give-backs.
Even a consultant hired by the city recognized the silliness in Garden Grove, but officials will not be dissuaded from their boondoggles. The Register reported last week that "a city-hired consultant's recommendation to slow down on pursuing a casino and to explore more realistic ideas for theme parks in its resort area may not necessarily dissuade officials from doing just that." The taxpayer-funded consultant told the city to quit with the big-score ideas and focus instead on luring Wal-Mart, hotel development and other "less ambitious ideas." The city could have saved a lot of tax money by simply reading my columns and Register editorials. But Garden Grove officials have a vision, and they have Garden Grove residents' tax dollars to squander.
? Why should city councils act responsibly when such wastrel behavior goes on at all levels, from the presidency to Congress to the state Legislature to the governor? A great recent example: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration, the San Jose Mercury News reported last week, "sunk more than $17 million into a state fleet of cars and trucks designed to be environmentally friendly. So far, the 1,138 'flex-fuel' vehicles have traveled a collective 10 million miles and burned more than 413,202 gallons of gas. But not one drop has been high-grade ethanol ? the fuel that promised to turn the passenger fleet into clean driving machines. That's because the vehicles have no access to ethanol pumping stations." Those won't come on line until 2009!
Well, this administration has ratcheted up its spending of taxpayer dollars to record levels. When California recalled Gov. Gray Davis, the total budget was $104 billion.
Under "fiscally responsible" Schwarzenegger, that amount is now $143 billion. Plus, Schwarzenegger has become a master at floating debt to pay for his current priorities. The administration recently went to an appeals court to argue that the state should be allowed to float up to $2 billion in bonds to pay for ongoing pension obligations,
without a vote of the people, despite the state constitution's clear requirement that any debt spending above $300,000 must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and a majority statewide vote.
The court rebuked Schwarzenspender, and his legalistic argument why a vote wasn't necessary. Had the governor prevailed, then Katy bar the doors ? government could run up debt without any limitation at all. As it is, the public is not much of a check on debt spending. California voters routinely vote for bond measures, figuring that it's no big deal to spend now and pay later.
That's not so hard to figure, given the laws of nature and economics.
The public doesn't mind spending Other People's Money, either, even if those other people happen to be their grandkids. The Lure of other people's $