The Third Rail

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by EricH

Big Dig is a pork project. It doesn't benefit anyone other than the people who use it, which would be people in Boston/using the Boston Airport. And the work was not exactly the best, but that's another story. You can't be selective about what you call "pork". It's either pork or not pork. If one thing that is $100,000 and benefits a limited number of people is pork, then how is a $4,000,000,000 per-mile thing that also benefits a limited number of people not pork?

Shouldn't we be considering the difference between the original cost estimates of the Big Dig, and the eventual cost to the public? The patronage and bid-rigging, and then the subsequent poor workmanship (relative to the cost) are what give it the appearance of unjustifiable spending. But if it had actually cost what they said it would cost, I think people would have welcomed it unequivocally, and not derided it as a pork project. Labelling it as pork sounds like an ex post facto judgement based on the city's poor experiences with the project, rather than an analysis of its utility. It's undeniable that the project has had significant economic and social benefits, the only question is whether or not these benefits, taken over time, justify the huge project cost.

The point is that it's not a pork project because it only benefits a few, but rather, portions of it are porkish because it encompassed so many politically-motivated favours and shady deals among the contractors. But it's still possible for the end result to be justifiable on its own merits.

Originally Posted by Nibbles

This plays into politics: Where do we get money. Large contributions awarded to a very small percentage of people, and involved only one or two politicians, which is more or less the contribution to the regional, is a pork project.

Here, again, I disagree. The number of politicians participating is a side issue. The key is whether or not the process constitutes a special favour, either to the constituents at large (e.g. people who may now be more inclined to vote for the politician), or to particular individuals (e.g. political contributors, friends or family of the politicians). For example, if one senator resolves to spend $100 000 on Macedonian refugees (of which there are few), and sticks a line item into the state budget authorizing this, it's not necessarily pork. If the money is largely being siphoned off by his Macedonian extended family, then it's probably pork. Or if this budget measure was inserted in recognition of a favour granted previously, it's probably pork. But if he really wants to help the Macedonians, the fact that it ought to have been openly debated in the legislature, and the fact that the state has limited funds to disburse (to benefit society as a whole), taken together, do not cause it to become pork.

Similarly for SBPLI: I see no evidence that that contribution is being used to pander to constituents in an unreasonable way, or represents an improper favour. It offers (presumably large) intangible benefits to relatively few, and on that basis might not be as critical as other causes which could be funded instead, but that's quite different from it being a pork project.

Originally Posted by Nibbles

Some people may want you to think otherwise, but the whole concept of America, the American dream, is that with hard work and dedication and you can strike it rich in capitalism helping people in a way that only government in other countries would do.

I've never seen the "American dream" characterized in that manner before. Typically it's about how hard work, etc. can lead to (depending on your perspective) personal and/or societal enrichment. But the key is that it's not about private citizens' contributions vs. government grants, and there's no implication that by doing something in some capitalistic "American way", you'll acheive better results than if the government had propped the endeavour up with some extra funds.