Editorial: Spending Habits Of Congress Questionable

Year in and year out we attempt to point out to Congress the importance of water transportation and to explain why it is a good investment to spend money to modernize navigation facilities and provide good maintenance and flood control. Even now the effort is going full sway to complete and pass a Water Resources Development Act, a document we have not seen in several years.

Once again the ugly viper of the federal exchequer has raised its ugly head, and we are called upon to say that the spending habits of Congress are like those of a child given free rein in a candy store.

The latest ripple in the Washington pond is the Washington Post story on July 2 that Congress, through its farm program, has paid “$1.3 billion to people who don’t even farm.”

One asphalt contractor who lives in a sprawling residence on 18 acres in the heart of rice country gets $1,300 annually because those acres were once farmed. The Post points out that since 2000 the government has paid $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops to individuals who do no farming at all. One woman has collected $191,000 over the past decade. A Houston surgeon collected more than $490,000.

The asphalt contractor tried to return the money and was told that it would just go to other landowners. He was upset because the government is giving “all this money to landowners who don’t even farm, while real farmers can’t afford to get started. It’s wrong.”

Well, sure it’s wrong. But that’s Congress.

Back to waterways, we wonder at the thinking process that allows for easy passage of $8 billion or more to restore a swamp in Florida but won’t take care of our national transportation system. About half of the estimated $2 billion it would cost for the proposed modernization and maintenance of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers is earmarked for environmental purposes. As congressional spending goes, it is not a large expenditure.

The spending habits of Congress boggle the mind. We bristled when we learned that the Federal Emergency Management Agency wasted more than a billion in the aftermath of Katrina, while so many serious problems remain unsolved in the region devastated by the hurricane. Again, it is a case of people who shouldn’t get it receiving funds. We have been aware all along that how Congress spends our money doesn’t always stand up to the test. Aside from the hurricane-recovery fiasco, the records are replete with examples of poor spending. It’s like fiddling while Rome burns. People who don’t deserve money get it, and people who can hardly put bread on their table go begging (often literally).

It is not just Congress that is guilty of poor spending habits, of course. Studies of debt in the United States reveals that millions are guilty of making poor choices. But the choices are theirs. It’s their money that they are spending, or borrowing and not able to pay back. But Congress spends taxpayers’ money.

When we consider the widespread waste in government and the widespread need for spending more wisely in critical areas, it becomes obvious that a balance must be achieved. It would be interesting to know how many in Congress own idle farmland but receive checks every year for crop supports: you know, the kind of green one gets for “not growing” something. It was once said that one could make more money not growing rice than for not growing corn. Why doesn’t Congress just not grow the waste and spend more wisely?

Back to the farm program. The Post writes, “Most of the…money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber—and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.”

Whew!

Since the farm program began in the 1930s, it has grown like Topsy and over the past decade has cost taxpayers $172 billion. That’s interesting, considering that the government stalled the replacement of Upper Mississippi River Locks and Dam 26 for a decade, and the cost of the project was around $2 billion. Sometimes projects, once ongoing, can be delayed so long that the cost/benefit ratio erodes. Not only can the project then be deauthorized, but also the money already spent is wasted.

One might expect Congress to defend its policies of holding up projects on the waterways by claiming an absence of funds in the exchequer, but there seems to be multi-billions of dollars available for foolishness.

It is wise to remember that every waterway project that is delayed will cost considerably more to complete later. The Locks 26 project was originally expected to cost $383 million. The 10-year delay boosted that price to almost four times that much. In the meantime, the Association of Western Railroads claimed that during that 10 years it could charge customers $750 million more annually for moving cargo by rail. We’re certain that towing industry leaders have in their files records that indicate how much money was lost to delays on the Mississippi.

It’s time to rethink our spending priorities.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)