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

A Reminder of the Ineffectiveness of Covid-19 Lockdowns

Since the beginning of this pandemic, the 1889 Institute has argued against lockdowns even as “experts” advocated for them. Now, months after the weeks-long lockdowns were supposed to end, there are still states in various levels of lockdown. State and local governments have devastated their economies with shutdowns in the name of public health. Yet some politicians, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, have stated a willingness to lockdown the economy again on a national scale to eliminate COVID-19, in a "virus first, economy later" approach. Even as some lawmakers in Oklahoma urge governor Stitt to take more extreme action, it is essential to remember that lockdowns are not very effective. A group of epidemiologists have released a declaration denoting the harmful effects of lockdowns. These include; lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health. These consequences are more ...
Read more

If Licensing Protects Consumers, Why Are Licensing Laws Blatantly Anti-Consumer?

Once upon a time, there was a small island whose economy revolved around scuba-diving tourism. Unfortunately, the island elected legislators who considered scuba dangerous. Inexperienced divers would surface too quickly and get the bends. The legislature, wanting to make diving feel safer, passed a law that banned sharks in designated scuba diving zones. There were no known cases of sharks attacking divers, nor were divers being frightened into surfacing too quickly by sharks. This is what most occupational licensing schemes look like. Legislators act, giving the public a sense of security, and giving powerful industries protection from competition. The laws do almost nothing to help consumers. Not only are they futile, they are also deceptive.   Some licensing regimes, like the Oklahoma Real Estate Broker ’ s Act, take the deceit one step farther. Instead of just telling the sharks not to eat people (which they weren’t doing anyway) the act does the equivalent of gathering a group...
Read more

Oklahoma Mayors Acted Unlawfully With COVID-19 Orders

In response to COVID-19, the mayors of Oklahoma’s three largest cities subjected their citizens to draconian shelter in place orders, restricting their freedom, damaging them financially, and undermining their constitutional rights. The mayoral decrees were more restrictive than those of the Governor, and in significant ways contradicted his policy. To this day, city-mandated social distancing rules remain in place in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman that are not required by the state’s reopening plan. The mayors claim that where their rules are more restrictive than the state’s, the city rules apply. Was any of this unilateral mayoral activity legally valid? For the reasons examined in my paper published today, An Argument Oklahoma’s Mayors Acted Unlawfully During COVID-19 , the short answer is no. (A summary of the paper can be found here .) A close examination of relevant city ordinances and state laws governing the mayors’ COVID-19 decrees forces the conclusion tha...
Read more

Destroying Others’ Property Is Violence, No Matter How It’s Done

With characterizations of protests and riots that have occurred over the last several months as “mostly peaceful” and headlines that include “peaceful demonstration intensified,” and “Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests,” it’s clear many in the press do not consider property destruction to be violent. Most likely, they mean most of the protesters haven’t physically harmed anyone. Still, during the very same protests, a large proportion of the “peaceful” participants , in obvious acts of aggression and hostility, have vandalized and stolen property. In fact, property destruction and theft are acts of violence, and are therefore legitimately defended against, not because these acts feel threatening, but because they are, in and of themselves, violent.   Nevertheless, it’s common to hear many condemn individuals who use or threaten force in defense of their property. After all, if no one is physically harmed, or even actually threatened, how can damaging inanimate objects possibl...
Read more