Porkbusting as Distraction

Lately many Republicans have jumped on the Porkbusters bandwagon, in an attempt to save some face and appear to adhere to the conservative principle of limited government. And today porkbusting is in the news again, with Instapundit telling us about apparent "earmark reform." I will submit that this whole issue of porkbusting and earmark reform is a massive distraction from the real waste in the federal government, which I will also re-submit is contained primarily within the Department of Defense.

Another story in the news may help to illustrate my point on a micro level: "U.S. contractors get half of aid to Colombia." The "foreign aid" being sent to Colombia consists primarily of military aid, and as this story illustrates, close to half of the $630 million doesn't even go to Colombia, but rather to private U.S. contractors. But don't worry, it's all to fight an important war on a plant. Or try this one from the past week: "The Aircraft That Can't Fly; Congress' $63 Million Boondoggle."

Okay, but you say, maybe that is wasteful spending. But it's not "pork" (me: so what?). And furthermore, $300 million and $63 million is peanuts compared to earmarks in general. As Citizens Against Government Waste reports in their annual Pig Book, total pork spending in 2007 was $13.2 billion, and they happily report that this is down from $14.9 billion in 2006. I would point out that while pork may have declined by $1.7 billion (a good thing, don't get me wrong), this came about by eliminating fully nine of the eleven pork-laden appropriations bills. And which two remain? You guessed it, Defense and Homeland Security.

But, I will further point out, the $13.2 billion in pork is peanuts compared to the grandaddy of waste, Defense spending. As Robert Higgs calculates, the annual spending on the military is now within range of $1 trillion annually. And in addition to that $1 trillion annually, there is another $1 trillion (or was it $2.3 trillion?) that the DoD can not account for. Oh, but aren't we fighting important wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Well, the Iraq War (clearly the more expensive one) has cost over $400 billion, but that's over 4 years, or roughly $100 billion per year. Once again, peanuts compared to total military spending, but also not peanuts compared to "pork" which is supposedly bloating the budget. Speaking of Iraq, though, that $1 trillion figure rears its head once again.

In closing, I will reiterate that this whole porkbusting game is a distraction from the real waste in federal government spending, military spending. It's easy for Congressmen and pundits to complain about things like the bridge to nowhere, which is actually a bridge to an international airport (Can you imagine of lobbyists had to take a ferry to Dulles? They already have a nice free road and plenty of Metro/bus options, but now are building a Metro line). But taking a real stand for limited government by opposing military spending is much harder.