|
Sun, Aug. 21, 2005; Inquirer, C5; Steven
Hill
With members of Congress
home for summer recess, the smoke is still clearing over the
smoldering ruins of what's left to fiscal restraint and the federal
budget. Even a Republican-controlled Congress can't seem to resist
spending Americans' tax dollars. The incentives for each district
representative and GOP leaders to bring home the bacon are too
tempting to resist.
When Democrats were in
control of Congress until 1994, Republicans routinely accused them of
spending like drunken sailors on a Saturday-night binge. But now that
the Republicans are in control of the cookie jar, look at the
results.
As reported by the
Washington Post, the recent highway bill is the most expensive
public-works legislation in U.S. history, complete with 6,376
earmarked projects. Congress passed transportation and energy bills
that busted cost limits established by President Bush. A massive
water-projects bill authorized spending that would exceed current
levels by 173 percent.
"If you look at
fiscal conservatism these days, it's in a sorry state," said
Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.). "Republicans don't even pretend
anymore."
But Flake was nearly
alone in his sentiment. He was one of only eight of the House's 435
members to vote against the $286.5 billion transportation bill that
was passed the day before the recess. Democrats voted for it en masse
as well. Yes, this pork was greased on both sides.
We could just blame it on
human nature, or politicians' instinct for reelection, or both. But
that would be too simplistic. The fact is, the very foundation of our
political system, the single-seat, winner-take-all district, and the
incentives of how you win elections and hold power in this system,
are what drive both Republicans and Democrats to spend like
there's
no tomorrow.
If we used an at-large
election system instead of single-seat districts to elect the U.S.
House, pork-barrel incentives would be greatly diminished. Since
representation wouldn't be so geography-based, neither would
appropriations.
But with winner-take-all
fiefdoms as the basis of our republic, there is tremendous incentive
to grab federal dollars for your district.
Election strategies,
especially in close races, favor giving away the store. When you are
in control of the cookie jar, dispensing the cookies becomes an
enormously enticing way to retain political control.
With neither Democrats
nor Republicans willing to stop the spending or play much of a
watchdog role, there's no one to check the bouts of excess.
Compare
this with Vermont, where a third party called the Progressive Party
holds six seats in the legislature.
One
of the Progressives' legislative roles has been to act as watchdog,
exposing bad policies that both Democrats and Republicans
support.
In
recent years, that has included a bipartisan corporate-welfare
tax-credit program that was so wasteful that even the Wall Street
Journal wrote an article criticizing it.
Lacking a third-party
watchdog at the federal level, and with the winner-take-all system
offering powerful incentives for pork-barrel gluttony, budgetary
waste has been impossible to stop.
The
real losers are the American taxpayers. Winner-take-all politics have
made losers of us all. It's time to explore getting rid of our
district-based electoral system before Congress spends the nation
into bankruptcy.
Steven
Hill is author of "Fixing Elections: The Failure of
America's
Winner Take All Politics." He is also a senior fellow
for
the Washington-based New America Foundation, www.newamerica.net.
This was distributed by the Knight Ridder/Tribune |
