Porkbarrell spending provides for an interesting debate. I often think of the debate over things like The Bridge to Nowhere as having three levels:
1) The immediate level, on which a government project sounds absurd.
2) The secondary level, on which you might realize that this may in fact be a worthwhile expenditure.
and (3) The core level, on which you realize that this project is none of the federal government’s business.
Take this newest object of mockery from budget hawk Tom Coburn:
My first reaction was, “Six-figures for studying electric goat-fences? Come on.”
But honestly, some of that reaction is unfair. I’m New York City-born, and have lived in cities or inner suburbs my entire life. Goats seem sort of silly to me. But that’s an unfounded bias, I admit. I’m pretty sure goats are important economically (though I’m not sure what they do).
Plus, never having done any R&D or run my own business, a $300,000 study seems extravagant to me. But honestly, I have no idea what sort of fence-testing one could do with that money. Maybe a ton. Maybe a little.
And this defense of goat-fence-testing carries some weight:
“Goats may be grazed with cattle to control brush and weeds on pastures and increase grass production,” Hart said.
But the magic words are also in there: “important for the industry as a whole.” If this test really has value, and if that value really is greater than $300,000, then maybe someone who stands to profit off of it should do the testing. Is there a mega-goat farmer out there somewhere? Could someone get a patent on the technology? Or, maybe a trade association could pool money from all goat farmers and conduct the studies.
The reason this pork is wasteful is not that it’s necessarily absurd for this study to happen, but because there’s no reason that federal taxpayers should be footing the bill.
