The proper use of federal money
Published Mon, Mar 10 2008 2:15 PM
Technorati Tags: Federalism, Constitution
As usual, I was listening to the radio on my way in to work today. I happened to catch an interesting discussion on the Michael Medved show regarding the propriety of certain types of federal spending. Points discussed included foreign aid, military spending, and earmarks. Another point made had to do with the fact that just because something may be a good thing to do doesn't make it the federal government's business to do it.
Examples were given. Foreign military aid was considered to be properly the business of the federal government, especially when that aid is channeled through the Department of Defense and the military budget. On the other hand, foreign humanitarian aid was considered to not be properly the business of the federal government, even though it might seem to be a good thing. Humanitarian aid, it was argued is more properly the province of private charities that make it their business to help people.
Another specific example given was the 20 or so billion dollars in humanitarian foreign aid given to help the victims of AIDS in Africa. While this money has gone to a worthwhile cause, and has in fact helped many people it's still questionable whether it was properly the responsibility of the federal government to provide it. Yes, it was a good and humanitarian thing to send the money, and many would argue that not enough money was sent even though it's among the largest amounts ever dedicated to the cause, but it wasn't the federal government's business, and nowhere is it authorized in our Constitution.
The positions of Senator McCain were also brought up during the conversation. It was remarked upon that he chooses three particularly interesting projects when he speaks out against earmarks: The famous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska; Senator Clinton's million dollar appropriation for a "Woodstock" museum; And a project to study the DNA of grizzly bears. Senator McCain is right. None of these projects deserve federal funding.
Which brings me to my point. What are the proper criteria for determining whether a project deserves federal funding? Thanks to the Patriot Post, I can refer you to Joseph Story's answer
"The true test is, whether the object be of a local character, and local use; or, whether it be of general benefit to the states. If it be purely local, congress cannot constitutionally appropriate money for the object. But, if the benefit be general, it matters not, whether in point of locality it be in one state, or several; whether it be of large, or of small extent."
-- Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)
Under this test, the famous "bridge to nowhere" certainly doesn't qualify. Neither does the "Woodstock" museum. But what about the grizzly DNA study? Surely that falls under something of general benefit to the States, considering that it was intended to help to ascertain whether grizzly bears should be qualified for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act?
Or does it? I'm not going to get into the merits of the ESA in this post, but I do want to give a quick look at the idea of federal funding for scientific research of any kind. Does the Constitution actually authorize such funding at all?
I believe that it does, but only in very tightly limited circumstances. It certainly doesn't authorize it in a lot of the ways that our federal government spends research moneys though.
For example, early in the last century the federal government not only funded, but conducted rather expensive research into the development of nuclear energy, primarily because of the military potential of nuclear weapons. We can debate the particulars another time, including whether nuclear weaponry is a good or an evil. Nevertheless, and regardless of your feelings about nuclear weaponry, this was a legitimate application of federal funding for scientific research. It was conducted in the national interest, in support of the federal government's role to protect and defend the States.
On the other hand, much of modern scientific research being funded by the federal government ought not to be funded by the federal government at all. Again I'll take a "hot button" issue for a quick example — federally funded embryonic stem cell research.
Much has been made of the so-called federal "ban" on embryonic stem cell research. I submit to you that there's no such thing. In fact, the federal government, at the recommendation of President Bush (you know the man the left loves to compare to a chimpanzee or to Adolph Hitler) actually funds research into four existing embryonic stem cell lines. Yet my point is, regardless of the attitudes of celebrities like Michael J. Fox and the late Christopher Reeve, the federal government should not be funding this research at all.
Why not? Surely it's a "good thing" of potentially great humanitarian benefit. That is if you discount the other forms of stem cell research that don't require the destruction of a human life (assuming you believe that a human embryo is both human and alive) it's of great humanitarian benefit.
But where in the Constitution is such funding authorized? The powers of Congress are very specifically enumerated in Article II, section 8. None of those powers include the funding of scientific research. The closest we come to it is in the eighth of their enumerated powers…
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Here we see the founders wanted Congress to promote the progress of science. Even so, they didn't authorize the Congress to fund research. Instead they authorized Congress to secure the exclusive rights to writings and discoveries.
Federal funding of research shouldn't be necessary if the research is truly desirable. Being able to patent the results of that research ought to be enough. Competition for the resources needed should ensure that worthwhile research is conducted, rather than politically popular research, or even the research that helps a particular Senator to get reelected for bringing funds into his State — funds that had to be extracted from the citizens of another State.
The federal government isn't authorized to use money that way in the first place. In the second place, political expediency replaces the usefulness of the research in the competition for those funds, turning scientific debates into political debates. Finally, federal funding of scientific research promotes corruption in government officials.
Federal funding of scientific research is not a proper use of federal money.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1136
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/3/10/1136.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)