An old axiom in Indiana is that the state suffers because Hoosier politicians bring home too little pork from Washington.
If officials like Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh would just return more of those tax dollars, goes the wistful thinking, Indiana
would have better roads to support business and better public spaces to attract knowledge workers.
However, a new Harvard Business School study suggests the truth is just the opposite: Federal money actually suppresses business
investment and growth. In other words, be thankful that the dollars are not flowing to Indiana, at least not in massive quantities.
The researchers found a strong link between politicians’ rise to powerful congressional committee chairmanships—perches
from which they could direct pork homeward—and a falloff in business investment.
A year after assuming a chairmanship, the chairman’s state on average received at least 40 percent more federal earmark
spending, a level that endures until they leave the post.
In the year following the ascendancy, public companies in the politician’s home state cut capital expenditures about
15 percent, curtail research and development spending, and increase their dividends to investors. Companies also winnow headcount
and see sales growth fall off.
The results held fairly consistently across large and small companies, and large and small states.
Indiana certainly sends more tax dollars to Washington than it gets back. The state, 14th-largest by population, ranks 32nd
in earmarks. Only California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina get fewer earmarks on a per-capita basis.
A link to the study, which is quite readable, is here.
Why does federal largess suffocate corporate creativity? Purdue University finance professor John McConnell thinks local
people put more energy into trying to land pork than doing productive work and creating jobs.
Look at West Virginia, McConnell says. It’s full of federally funded projects courtesy of long-time Sen. Robert Byrd,
yet it’s among the most economically depressed states in the nation.
“Like many other opiates, federal pork creates an addiction that stunts creativity,” he says. “In this
case, the addiction crowds out entrepreneurial activity of the type that creates value.”
McConnell adds that everyone would be better off with lower taxes and not having to beg to get it back.
Your turn. Is there an upside to pork?








IBJ Conversations
7 Comments
Add Comment
People are fed up with the pork process. In the West Virginia example, Roberty Byrd has seniority because he's been there for 50 years but he can barely walk and talk now in his 90s. Can anyone of either party think that is an ideal example of a highly engaged Senator or representative of the people?
Entitlements and Pork: two types of government spending that by their name alone sound like the opposite of self-reliance, hard work and creativity.
People are rightfully concerned about public spending, govt employee pensions, and debt levels.
I hope this study will remain in the public debate.
The over spending and larger government is a result the State and Feds conceding to the lobbing groups requests to keep giving the incentives for Out growth, rural. Out growth, larger government, and more spending go hand in hand. The State and Federal budgets keep enlarging the budget, spending more, incentivizing for outgrowth and calling it a free market. This is the problem. We need to make sure that our taxes go towards Comprehensive Community Redevelopment projects that rebuild our communities, back to our core centers, cleaning up our corridors that reconnect every town in our State, and Country.
We need leaders that understand this saves money, creates jobs with long term sustainability, and have the guts to implement the needed actions to do create the impact project.
The Dead End Road to No Ware concept, again creating bigger, regionalism, more government, more spending and the leaders selling the same shit is the problem.
Basically, What is the road map of the Federal Pork? Is it directly to project which they give it right back and no one else benefits? Does it go to supplies, Products, and labor? What is the fiscal Trickle Down effect of the Federal Pork spending?
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20106010322
or how about this one:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20106020348
The fact of the matter is that it's much easier to squawk than it is to give up something that you've gotten for free for an extended period of time.