Skip to main content

Spending It Like They Stole It


When does government have the right to spend taxpayer money? Or perhaps, more pressingly, when should the government be forbidden from spending taxpayer money? 

1889 Institute has previously written on the issue - developing five questions that should be asked before any government entity spends a single dime. These questions are: 

1. Is a program or agency consistent with the mission of Oklahoma’s state government? This purpose was spelled out in our state constitution: “Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Secure and perpetuate liberty (notice this is the first order of business). Secure just and rightful government (not any government, not the domino of the majority over the minority - just and rightful). Promote (not provide, ordain or establish) mutual welfare and happiness. 

2. Is the program or agency fulfilling a need only government can effectively fill? Since government is funded through threat of force (if you continually refuse to pay your taxes, eventually men with guns will come to lock you away), it must be careful not to step in where it is not needed. Lawmakers should carefully consider whether the use of force to accomplish a given end is morally justified before committing taxpayer money to any expenditure.

3. Are the benefits from a program or agency unambiguous, obvious, and universal? Ideally, the benefits from government programs would also be measurable. When this is infeasible, they should be large and obvious. The benefits of courts, police and fire departments, and sewer systems, are obvious, though virtually impossible to measure. These benefits accrue to everyone. 

4. Do the benefits of a program or agency indisputably outweigh the costs? This is fairly obvious, but we must remember to factor in the total cost of the program, not only that portion which is financed at a given level of government. For instance, while the state of Oklahoma would only be on the hook for 10% of Medicaid expansion (as of now), the benefits to the state should be proven to a near certainty to outweigh the cost of both state and federal investment before Medicaid is expanded. Financial costs of an economic development program can be far outweighed by the negative impacts on businesses that do not enjoy the largesse of government, although those costs are not easily identified and quantified.

5. Does the existing program or agency show evidence of past success? 1889 has written previously about how to measure success. Job one is to make sure you’re measuring effects, not effort. Effects are the tangible results of a program, such as student performance on a national standards test that measures what they know. Effort is the input into the program, such as how many 4 year olds are enrolled in pre-k or how much money the state spends on each public school student. Effort may influence effects, if it is well directed. Yet, for all the spending on pre-k programming in Oklahoma, there has been no evidence of a positive impact. If the intention behind the program, and the measure of success is academic performance, the evidence is that the program has failed. It should therefore be cancelled.

Keep in mind, these principles to all levels of government and all forms of spending. There is no such thing as government spending that does not come directly out of the pockets of taxpayers. Federal money spent by the states? Do you pay federal taxes? I know I do. Money from corporate taxes? Do you buy things from corporations? I know I do. 

If Oklahomans are worried about how to get our fair share of federal money (a legitimate concern) perhaps we should hold our members of congress accountable to keep federal spending as low as possible, and to apply these same principles to federal spending. That way we won’t have to scramble to ensure we get our due. Government actors at all levels of government need to remember that it is taxpayer money they spend. They have a responsibility to spend it like they earned it, not like they stole it. 

Mike Davis is Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

No License, Sherlock: Licensing for Private Investigators

What does a private investigator do? Surely, we’re all familiar with various movies and shows featuring the exciting adventures of Sherlock Holmes or Magnum PI. However, reality is often disappointing, and the fact is private investigation is usually dull and relatively safe. Private investigators are tasked with conducting surveillance and fact-finding missions for their clients, but they gain no special powers to do so.  My recent paper deals with the licensing of private investigators. Oklahoma’s private investigator licenses are governed by the Council of Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET), which follows the advice of a committee made up of people who run private investigative agencies. Improved competition is not likely to be in the best interest of these agencies, so it is questionable whether they should be in a gate-keeping position they could easily turn to their advantage. Private Investigators must undergo a series of trainings and pas...
Read more

Eat Your Vegetables: City Council Considers A Well-Disguised Sin Tax

The Oklahoma City Council is considering a well-disguised sin tax. They call it a Healthy Neighborhood Zoning Overlay, but the effect is the same. It limits new dollar stores in the specified neighborhood. The ostensible goal is to create a welcoming environment for grocery stores selling fresh meat and produce. But it accomplishes this goal by giving existing dollar stores a monopoly, which will raise prices, and punish residents for shopping at the purveyors of (allegedly nothing but) junk food, instead of subsisting on fresh, organic kale smoothies like good little citizens. Why would the Council intentionally restrict the supply of stores where many of their residents buy basic household goods and food? Several possibilities present themselves, though none are sound.   A fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of supply and demand. Economists call the current state of the neighborhood a contestable market: dollar stores choose low prices because the mere p...
Read more

On Coronavirus and American Exceptionalism

Most of us have no idea whether to fear the coming coronavirus pandemic or to scoff at what seems to be a panic, complete with toilet paper buying sprees. I find myself mostly in the latter camp, due not to some great scientific knowledge, but as a matter of general disposition. But I’m also a father of young children, so a touch of protective instinct kicks in whenever a big outside force that could harm my family rears its head. With much I don’t know, there is something I do know: If forced to weather a pandemic, I’d rather do so in the United States than any other country on earth. Watching news coverage, I cannot help but notice a subtle message underlying the words of far too many in the political commentariat. Many seem to speak about China’s management of the outbreak with envy . Their analysis is that because we are a big, unruly, open society, we cannot hope to make people to do what is necessary to stem the spread. The old “China for a Day” fantasy of Thomas Fri...
Read more

Even If Pandemic Models Were Right, Were Covid Lockdowns Wrong?

1889 has been quite critical of pandemic modeling that government officials have relied on for their Covid-19 response. We have also criticized shutdown orders in light of flaws in the models. But let’s assume for a moment that the worst predictions really would have come true if nothing was done. Even in those worst case scenarios, it’s fair to ask if our governments did the right thing. Were involuntary shutdowns justified, or would people have found a way to both limit the contagion and maintain some level of productivity? Was putting healthy citizens under house arrest acceptable even if they were willing to risk infection?   While large groups of people are often compared to herd animals, we are not sheep. We don’t behave like animals. We can, have, and will step up when our communities are in danger. When government and journalists give incomplete or false information, people will act irrationally. Depending on the situation, some will blindly follow the first aut...
Read more