ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


Agreed. That more people (of many political persuasions, not just the small-gov or libertarian folks) can't see the problem with this is a good illustration of the failure of public discussion around these issues.
This may wind up being a federal spending item which it is politically (relatively) easy to cut.
A greater concern, in my opinion, is not that they will spend other people's money more freely, but that federal priorities will supplant local constituent priorities (neither necessarily good or bad). This opens up space for rent-seekers to capture federal dollars through local governments. The feds say "I didn't do it" and the locals say "It was free money". I have no doubt that people want government to spend _some_ money, despite libertarian criticism that government spending is the original sin, or some such thing. There are legitimate and well-supported government functions. The public by and large dismisses the idiotic notions of open-source policing and national defense. They also tend to embrace some forms of redistribution, and more so as they have greater need of it. I would prefer ordinary constituents participated more in the appropriations process, and that requires knowing where the money is coming from and what it is being used for. This becomes more difficult when the money takes the circuitous route of federal appropriations for local expenditures.
However, in places like California where local governments are hamstrung by state laws that strictly curtail their taxing powers in ways that make absolutely no sense in terms of economics or political process (but very good sense in terms of maximizing the profits and wealth of land owners a la British Corn Laws), federal dollars become life support and voters are disinclined to contemplate the wisdom of the funding mechanism. The anti-tax movement created a situation in which a policy thwarting legitimate taxation has encouraged the use of an intermediary taxing authority and attendant loss of local constituent control. Our current predicament is the political climax of an economic mistake. I'd pass the libertarians a towel to wipe-up . . . if we could afford one.
Have a look at the Australian State Governments if you want to see the irresponsibility that can develop when a large source of funds is transfer payments from the Federal Govt.
IMO, "cyclical phenomenon" and "historic first" don't go together too well.