By Kevin D. Williamson
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Fresno, Calif.
– The water war in California touches everything: fish and farmers, the
Endangered Species Act, political fights between the parties and within both
the Democratic party and the state’s rump of a Republican party. But there is
one aspect of the problem about which there is broad agreement by everyone from
Senator Dianne Feinstein to conservative farmers in the San Joaquin Valley: The
state needs more and better water infrastructure.
Question: Why doesn’t it have any?
As Senator Feinstein pointed out in a speech earlier this
year, California has essentially the same major water infrastructure today as
it did in the 1960s, when the state was home to approximately 16 million people
instead of 40 million people — farmers, swimming-pool owners, golfers,
lawn-waterers, guacamole-eaters, and other thirsty types. The State Water
Project, California’s major water infrastructure, was launched in the 1950s and
mostly finished up by the 1970s. Individual water districts have added some
capacity over the years, but the major conveyance-and-storage system remains
largely unchanged.
Question: Where does the money go?
California, the most populous state, has the nation’s
largest tax base. It also has some of the nation’s highest state taxes. State
and local government spending adds up to nearly 20 percent of California’s
economic output, while thriftier states such as Texas and New Hampshire spend
less than 15 percent. It isn’t for want of resources that California has gone
thirsty.
There’s the train, of course. California is spending an
estimates $68 billion (it will end up costing much, much more than that) on a
high-speed rail project, the first leg of which will connect the massive urban
centers of . . . Merced and Bakersfield . . . . If all goes according to plan
(ho, ho) the high-speed rail will tear through the Central Valley at terrific
speeds, connecting Los Angeles with San Francisco in a trip that will take only
three hours, rather than the current brutal flight time of one hour and ten
minutes.
Dumb, sure. And more than dumb: recklessly stupid,
willfully wasteful, self-aggrandizing, corrupt (the bidding process is rigged
for the benefit of political constituencies), harebrained, screwy, and
preposterous.
But that isn’t really the problem, either.
California isn’t spending its money on trains, just as
the Federal Highway Administration does not spend its money on highways, and
the Department of Defense does not spend its money on aircraft carriers,
military bases, and tanks.
California’s government, like the federal government and
most other state and local governments, spends its money on salaries, benefits,
pensions, and other forms of employee compensation. The numbers are contentious
— for obvious political reasons — but it is estimated that something between
half and 80 percent of California’s state and local spending ultimately goes to
employee compensation. (Interesting analysis here.)
That is where the money goes.
There are two problems with public-sector compensation.
The first and smaller problem is that many government workers are paid too
much. (I regularly check in on the salary of the city manager of Lubbock,
Texas: $235,000 at last check.) In 2012, a Philadelphia police detective took
enough in “overtime” to have a six-figure income — and the first of those
figures was a three. High salaries for federal workers have driven up the cost
of living in the D.C. area dramatically, so the federal government has expanded
“locality pay,” i.e., paying them even more, which probably will increase the
cost of living in the capital area, which probably will result in calls for
still-higher pay, etc.
The second and larger problem with public-sector workers
is that there are a whole lot of them. There are more than 2 million federal
workers, and more than a quarter of those — more than half a million federal
employees — are paid in excess of $100,000 a year. The Air Force has nearly as
many civilian employees as it does guardsmen and reserves combined. In the
years after 9/11, the Navy’s civilian employment continued to grow even as
other positions were cut. University administrations continue to grow at an astonishing
rate — both in absolute terms and in per-student terms — even where full-time
faculty positions are being cut.
There are two welfare states: One of them is composed of
people, mostly poor or old, receiving benefits from the government; the second
one is composed of people, mostly high-income, signing those checks and
staffing the vast bureaucracies that administer our social-services agencies
and other public-sector institutions.
When politicians talk about “investments,” we think they
mean bridges and research laboratories and canals to bring water to central
California. But what they are investing in is dependency. In California, that
means creating a lot of full-time jobs for Democrats while doing relatively
little for a water system that dates from the Eisenhower years.
There’s a federal water project in California, too. That
one dates from the Roosevelt administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment