Decline hurts prosperity

The Charlottesville Daily Progress
Published: June 17, 2008

A “collapse of prosperity” was forecast at a U.S. Senate Banking Committee hearing the other day — and it had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis or the price of gasoline.

Four big-city mayors, including Mark Funkhouser of Kansas City, Mo., who de-livered the above quote, said cities are suffering greatly from deteriorating infrastructure.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloom-berg then criticized Congress’s penchant for lavishing earmarks upon hometown districts, even as he admitted that cities like his beg for earmarks.

The problem, he said, is that the federal funding is not strategically planned. Money is parceled out to this project and that, with an eye toward winning attention and votes, when it should instead be consolidated and allocated to the most important projects.

“We’re as guilty as anybody,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “We ask for money for things that are totally local, and why the federal government does it, I don’t know. They shouldn’t be doing it, although we will continue to ask as long as they are giving it out. ... Seems to me the Senate should get together and say together, ‘We’re not going to do it anymore.’”

Ironically, these comments were made even as another round of earmarks was grabbing the public’s attention.

Earmarks in the House defense authorization bill jumped 29 percent last month, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense — and that’s just one piece of legislation.

Defenders say earmarking provides money for worthy projects that might never otherwise get funding. These projects provide jobs and contribute to the good of the district — and even sometimes the larger good of the country.

Critics claim that it provides a loophole for vote-buying, as projects are approved for contractors or lobbyists that have donated to legislators’ campaigns. Bringing home the bacon also wins votes from grateful constituents.

But even if certain projects are worthy in and of themselves, said the mayors, they still might not be the best and highest use of taxpayer money. That money could be better leveraged by being directed toward infrastructure projects that serve the masses — one interstate bridge, for instance, rather than a museum gift here, a research grant there.

Charlottesville and Albemarle face their own infrastructure issues. Roads and bridges are an increasing source of concern — not only over structural safety but also traffic capacity. The city’s sewer and storm-water system needs replacing. A dam is planned to be heightened and new pipelines built to provide drinking water. Utility rates are going up to pay for some of these improvements. And that’s just citing some of the most obvious and immediate needs.

The big-city mayors say their cities need projects like these in order to sustain economic health.

Getting Congress to strategically review and target earmarks toward the nation’s most needy projects would be one way of addressing the problem.

But such an approach also would dilute the impact of earmarks’ chief purpose — pleasing voters and donors.

Congress may be willing to risk “a quiet collapse of prosperity” rather than risk its own meal ticket.