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

How to Be Number One in Government Transparency

A 2020 HBO movie entitled Bad Education , starring Hugh Jackman, tells the story of Frank Tassone, a real-life superintendent of the Roslyn, New York school district who along with an accomplice, it was discovered in 2004, stole an overall total of $11.2 million in district funds. It ’ s been called the “ largest public school embezzlement in U.S. history.” It should be called the “ largest public school embezzlement ever discovered in U.S. history” because there is no way to be sure that a worse theft has not occurred. The theft would never have been discovered had Tassone ’ s partner in crime, Pamela Gluckin, not had her son buy $83,000 in home remodeling supplies on the school ’ s credit card. But for alert Home Depot employees, Gluckin and Tassone likely would have gotten away with their theft, carried out over years, to this day. The movie ’ s dramatization of a student reporter digging into filed receipts and investigating suspicious (fake) vendors likely reflects the hard wo...
Read more

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v...
Read more

The Truth About COVID-19: Better Than You Think

As the media turns its attention back to COVID-19, there is a renewed push to shut down the economy. Some states have even begun to scale back reopening plans for their economies; others continue to delay opening. It is essential to look past their catastrophizing and focus on the facts of COVID-19. One fact to consider: while testing has risen 23%, the rate of positive results has only risen 1.3 percentage points to 6.2%. Even as alarmists point to the rise in cases, they still admit that the boost in testing has played a role in the rise in the total number of known cases. Therefore, the total number of positive cases is not of much use in this case, as it only paints a partial picture. The rate of increase in total positive cases is a more meaningful measure, and it has barely increased. Even more important is who is getting infected. The data show that recent cases are primarily younger people. But that’s a good thing; these are precisely the people that are key to building herd ...
Read more

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more