Bribing people with their own money

Posted by Marc Hodak on July 8, 2007 under Invisible trade-offs | 3 Comments to Read

Isn’t it ridiculous that homeland security funds are being taken away from New York and given to terror targets like Louisville, KY, or Omaha, NE? That’s the understandable reaction of New York politicians.

“Why do they persist in giving money to places that need it a lot less than New York City?” said [New York Senator Charles] Schumer, a Democrat.

“They still just don’t get it,” said [New York Rep. Peter] King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee. “New York is by far the No. 1 terrorist target in the country, and no one else is even a close second.”

As a New Yorker, here is what I don’t get: Why should I expect people from Nebraska or Kentucky to pay for my security in New York any more than one should expect me in New York to pay for security in Nebraska or Kentucky? In other words, why should these tax dollars be funneled through Washington at all? It’s not like New York is a poor state. It’s not as if New Yorkers don’t choose to live there, acutely conscious of the risks of terrorism. It’s not like God said that New Yorkers and non-New Yorkers in middle America are bound to cross-subsidize each other on matters of local protection, even from foreign enemies. Politicians playing God have decreed that, but it doesn’t mean it has to be that way.

Everyone knows that the only reason Kentucky or Nebraska is getting Homeland Security funds at all, which include taxes collected from Kentuckians and Nebraskans as well as New Yorkers, is that (1) every state has representation in Congress, (2) Congressional representatives are in the business of getting the most for their respective constituencies, and (3) by just saying the right thing like, “Hey, terrorists can strike ANYWHERE,” congressmen can enlarge that tax pool, then dip into it to spread the wealth around.  That’s what politicians do.

Now, I can see that if New York, or any state, were being attacked by a foreign army then, yeah, we all chip in for the common defense. I’m sure President Bush and the fear-mongering hawks on both sides of the aisle will say, “Well, Hodak doesn’t get it.  This IS a war!  Anyone who wants to treat terrorism as a criminal matter is basically surrendering to the enemy.”

Hmm, “war” or “criminal matter?” Politicians benefit from eliminating useful distinctions, like the possibility that the fight against terror could be viewed as both a war and a criminal matter. If they bought into that distinction, then they could allocate money to the military for the “war” aspect of this fight, i.e., hitting terrorist bases in Afghanistan or wherever, and allow the states to carry on the domestic, “criminal” aspects of the fight, like car bombs and shootings, ideally coordinating with the Feds rather than getting into pissing matches over turf.

In other word, they don’t have to funnel all that homeland security money through Homeland Security in Washington. Congress could allow local politicians to raise what they need locally to defend their localities from acts that are materially indistinguishable from crimes. In other words, we don’t have to impose a beggar-thy-neighbor system for local spending. Congress doesn’t have to bribe us with our own money to do what we need to in order to defend ourselves.