DeclinetoState
12-16-2005, 10:39 AM
by Chris Edwards
<!--BIO-->Chris Edwards (http://www.cato.org/people/edwards.html) is director of tax policy at the Cato Institute and author of Downsizing the Federal Government (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=18&pid=1441277).
<!--BODY-->Congress is being criticized for funding pork projects and for a general lack of fiscal restraint. Many people agree that there is a spending problem in Washington, but not many understand the fundamental causes.
Why have Republicans abandoned their pledge in the 1994 Contract with America to cut "government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money"? Did the GOP simply decide that it was good politics to buy votes with lavish special-interest spending?
That is one cause of the budget crisis, but not the core problem. With the extraordinarily high reelection rates in Congress, any political advantage gained from special-interest spending is not crucial. The real problem is the pro-spending mindset ingrained in long-time legislators. It's called "Potomac Fever," and it causes members of Congress to see themselves as philanthropists with unlimited means to solve every problem in society.
Potomac Fever is fueled by the thousands of interest groups in Washington that trumpet the benefits of favored programs. For legislators, spending rewards their egos because they get lauded in the media for their noble public service, they get praised by program beneficiaries, they get toasted at gala dinners in their honor, and they get buildings and highways named after them.
Unfortunately, members of Congress forget that they are spending other people's money. They don't consider the private activities that would occur if resources weren't redirected to Washington to fund their "philanthropy." They become program advocates, rather than referees who judge program merits against concerns about tax levels and adherence to the Constitution.
This phenomenon is evident in the biographies on many congressional websites. Many members boast of the awards they have won for supporting special-interest spending. By my count, the Senate's top recipient of special-interest awards is Patty Murray (D., Wash.). Her website (http://murray.senate.gov/about/awards.cfm) proudly lists 81 pro-spending awards including "Friend of the Farm Bureau," the "Golden Spike Award" for her support of Amtrak, and the "Lifetime Leadership for Quality Childcare Award."
Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5333)
Republicans such as Ted Stevens and Mike De Wine are nearly as bad as Democrats Murray and Barbara Boxer.
<!--BIO-->Chris Edwards (http://www.cato.org/people/edwards.html) is director of tax policy at the Cato Institute and author of Downsizing the Federal Government (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=18&pid=1441277).
<!--BODY-->Congress is being criticized for funding pork projects and for a general lack of fiscal restraint. Many people agree that there is a spending problem in Washington, but not many understand the fundamental causes.
Why have Republicans abandoned their pledge in the 1994 Contract with America to cut "government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money"? Did the GOP simply decide that it was good politics to buy votes with lavish special-interest spending?
That is one cause of the budget crisis, but not the core problem. With the extraordinarily high reelection rates in Congress, any political advantage gained from special-interest spending is not crucial. The real problem is the pro-spending mindset ingrained in long-time legislators. It's called "Potomac Fever," and it causes members of Congress to see themselves as philanthropists with unlimited means to solve every problem in society.
Potomac Fever is fueled by the thousands of interest groups in Washington that trumpet the benefits of favored programs. For legislators, spending rewards their egos because they get lauded in the media for their noble public service, they get praised by program beneficiaries, they get toasted at gala dinners in their honor, and they get buildings and highways named after them.
Unfortunately, members of Congress forget that they are spending other people's money. They don't consider the private activities that would occur if resources weren't redirected to Washington to fund their "philanthropy." They become program advocates, rather than referees who judge program merits against concerns about tax levels and adherence to the Constitution.
This phenomenon is evident in the biographies on many congressional websites. Many members boast of the awards they have won for supporting special-interest spending. By my count, the Senate's top recipient of special-interest awards is Patty Murray (D., Wash.). Her website (http://murray.senate.gov/about/awards.cfm) proudly lists 81 pro-spending awards including "Friend of the Farm Bureau," the "Golden Spike Award" for her support of Amtrak, and the "Lifetime Leadership for Quality Childcare Award."
Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5333)
Republicans such as Ted Stevens and Mike De Wine are nearly as bad as Democrats Murray and Barbara Boxer.