Public Policy Debate: The Rigged Gamel J. Semmens

395 Public Policy Debate: The Rigged Game by John Semmens B y any measure, the federal government is growing at an alarming rate-the tax burden continues to soar, spending is out of control, and the fiscal 1988 omnibus ap propriations bill included an incredible array of special-interest boondoggles. But isn't this what the people want? Haven't they voted for an ever-expanding government? Let us give the matter some thought. The fact that the last general election saw 98 per cent of the incumbent members of Congress win re-election would appear to substantiate the contention that wastrel government is the will of the people. However, the success rate of in cumbent legislators is not necessarily due to voter approval. After all, the success rate of in cumbent officers of the Soviet Union's Com munist Party is 99 per cent. What's more, their voter turnout ratios are greater. Yet, we'd hardly tout such statistics as a manifestation of an obviously popular government.

This is not to say that American elections are no different from those of more authoritarian systems. At the same time, though, members of the American government do have certain advantages in slanting the public policy debate in favor of their own interests. Private citizens, on the other hand, are handicapped by critical disadvantages even in a society as open to free speech as ours. Those on the outside of government are handicapped in at least three key ways. First, private citizens often have great difficulty in John Semmens is an economist with the Laissez Faire Insti tute, a free-market research organization headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. acquiring the information needed to wage a successful campaign against government policy. Second, private citizens are at a finan cial disadvantage in terms of the resources they can apply to the policy debate. Third, private citizens often must do battle on the bureaucrats' home turf.

Consider the matter of information. Propo nents of increased government spending have people on the public payrolls working full-time to produce words, numbers, and pictures in support of their cases. Congressmen have ex tensive staffs to do their bidding. Furthermore, the bureaucracy itself is constantly generating reports, statistics, and presentations on behalf of bigger budgets, more appropriations, and new programs. All of this, of course, is fi nanced out of public funds. Meanwhile, anyone who would question the need for bloated government programs has tre mendous difficulty. After paying taxes to fund the propaganda on behalf of increased govern ment spending, he must find the after-tax re sources to fund his contrary views. The facts he 396 THE FREEMAN. OCTOBER 1988 may need often are buried in the recesses of the bureaucracy. Information is concealed in ob scure code-like jargon. Formats peculiar to the public sector obstruct a clear view of the most basic operational information.

Even someone well versed in private-sector accounting can have difficulty deciphering gov ernment budget and expenditure reports. Some times there is little accounting at all for how public funds are spent. For example, the Gen eral Accounting Office (Congress's auditing arm) admitted that 80 per cent of the grants awarded by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration during the Carter Administra tion were not audited by UMTA. There was no verification of how the money was spent. This information, however, did not receive wide publicity. Subsidies to public transit still amount to billions of dollars each year. Government employees who may be ap palled by the waste they see around them are discouraged from communicating the knowl edge to the general public. Complaints through official channels most often are ignored or sup pressed. Sanctions and threats of sanctions are used to intimidate any inclination an employee may have to discuss the deficiencies of existing programs or policies. While much hoopla has been made of laws to protect government "whistle-blowers," this protection is granted or withheld at the discretion of Congress. As a major participant in the waste of taxpayers' money, Congress hardly can be expected to be sympathetic to insiders who would expose these schemes to outside scrutiny.

Ignoring Waste Public hearings on government programs are little more than parades of self-serving suppli cants. A few years ago, I appeared at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. Myobjec tive was to present evidence detailing the egre gious waste of one of the multitude of transpor tation subsidy programs. I was appearing on my own time. My transportation was provided by a privately funded foundation. Mine was the only testimony that day which opposed the sub sidies. Arrayed opposite me was a crowd of more than two dozen proponents of continued and expanded subsidies. Virtually every one of these witnesses appeared on behalf of some state or local government agency. The time and transportation of these witnesses were paid for by the same taxpayers from whom future sub sidies were to be extracted. Even when referenda are used to give a greater impression of voter control, the deck is stacked against the private citizen. Public offi cials call on the vast taxpayer-supported bu reaucracy to create the appropriate data in sup port of the expanded government program.

When these partisan undertakings are ques tioned, the ritualistic defense is that the activi ties are merely "informational" in character. Of course, the information may have been care fully selected and adjusted to remove any nega tivism or inconveniently contradictory evi dence. Citizens who oppose increases in taxes or spending must campaign with their own money - what's left of it after taxes. Public law dis allows the tax-deductibility of contributions to organizations whose activities are aimed at in fluencing public policy. The typical public issue controversy, then, sees money taken from the taxpayer to support lobbying for laws de signed to take more money from him. Any de fense against these raids on his income must be financed with after-tax dollars. Even after private citizens win a battle against the expansion of government, the war goes on. The restraints achieved by a suc cessful citizens' effort almost always leave a core of the bureaucracy and the big-spending politicians intact. Work begins immediately at taxpayers' expense-on schemes to evade or reverse any restraints on government power.

New legislation to raise taxes or spending can be introduced at any time. Proposals voted down yesterday can be resurrected today. Sometimes the process is so rigged that a pro posal can hardly be resisted, as in the case of local school budgets. If the budget proposal fails, it can be brought up over and over until it passes. Once it passes, the rules change-it cannot be repealed even if the voters change their minds. The rationalization behind this one-sided procedure is the supposed need to protect public-sector budgeting from the contingencies of the electoral process. Left unstated is the possibility that the private sector could benefit from being relieved of the uncertainties in herent in repeated attempts to raise taxes. This is especially true for private-sector capital bud geting. The more routine functions of government appropriations take place when the legislature is in session. The offices of the recipient gov ernment agencies are likely to be conveniently located near the legislature. Private-sector busi nesses and individuals, on the other hand, are dispersed across the nation. It is relatively easy for the public-sector bureaucrat to drop in on legislative hearings to offer support for his agency's budget. It is a lot less convenient for the average citizen to make the trek from home or business to the lawmaking arena, especially when he must do it on his own time and at his own expense.