by Richard B. McKenzie
Our Washington political leaders seem to be running like lemmings toward a
fiscal Armageddon that Greece has recently reached. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the federal deficit was $1.1 trillion for fiscal
year 2012, down from $1.3 trillion in 2011.1 At the end of fiscal 2012, the gross federal debt was 105 percent of
gross domestic product for the year and is expected to rise to above 107
percent in the current fiscal year.2 No one should be sanguine that the CBO's projected lower federal
deficits for the rest of the 2010s will be realized.
Nevertheless, virtually all members of Congress continue to pack
"political pork" into the federal budget, in the form of both
earmarks and expansions of their favorite transfer programs.3 Each member can correctly reason that his (or her) preferred package of
pork, alone, will not significantly affect federal deficits and, therefore, the
fiscal fate of the country. Such thinking derives from "the logic of
collective action" that the late economist Mancur Olson laid out nearly a
half century ago.4 As Olson pointed out, each person (or lobby) has an incentive to seek
his (or its) special program because, while everyone bears the costs, only that
person or group reaps the benefits. For that reason, the prospect of a fiscal
doomsday is growing.
One recent example of this collective logic at work is the new subsidies
Congress has included in the current farm "reform" bill for—are you
ready?—popcorn. At this writing, the farm bill of 2012 has not passed Congress,
with the delay perhaps due, in part, to the recent national election in early
November.
The Pork in Popcorn
If the bill passes, popcorn growers will now join a long list of grain
farmers (growers of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, long-grain rice,
medium-grain rice, pulse crops, soybeans, other oil seeds, and peanuts) whose
wallets have been padded by American taxpayers in a variety of forms—including
payments for non-production—over the past century. The new subsidies would be
in the form of government coverage of a sizable portion of popcorn farmers'
crop insurance and export promotions. This benefit would be no less a subsidy
than direct payments to farmers for not planting crops. A subsidy for export
promotion would drive up the price of domestic popcorn and, hence, increase
popcorn growers' revenues and profits at the expense of American consumers and
taxpayers. Subsidized crop insurance for popcorn growers could dampen price
increases but, as with the export promotions subsidies, American taxpayers
would foot the bill.




.jpg)















