By Shortly before Jesus’ crucifixion, he was a guest in the home of Mary of Bethany and her family. As Jesus and his disciples reclined at the dinner table, Mary took a pound of very expensive ointment and used it to anoint Jesus’ feet.
This led to some grumbling among the disciples: Why wasn’t this ointment sold with the proceeds given to the poor?
The disciples’ complaining relates to a fundamental economic principle, the law of scarcity. Resources are limited, human desires are unlimited. Spending more on one thing means spending less on something else.
Art Marmorstein, local columnist
MORE: Art Marmorstein: Can you pass a simple reading test?
I loved the way in which longtime South Dakota legislator Al Novstrup of Aberdeen would so often remind constituents of the scarcity principle. Want more money for education, health care, tourism or economic development projects? Fine, but what programs do you want to see cut to free up resources for the extra spending? Want lower property taxes, sales taxes or user fees? Fine, but what alternative sources do you suggest to replace the lost funds? Or what programs do you propose to eliminate if the state has less revenue available?
Now, sometimes one might think there are some no-brainer answers when it comes to allocation of resources. Money for the poor has to be a higher priority than luxury items, yes?
“Sell what you have, give to the poor, come follow me,” said Jesus to a rich young ruler who asked about eternal life.
But those who advocate giving to the poor as priority No. 1 aren’t always in the right, and they are not always as admirable as they might claim to be. John’s Gospel points out that it was Judas who led those grumbling about the “waste” of pouring ointment on Jesus’ feet. John notes, too, that Judas’ real concern wasn’t the poor. He was a thief, and he held the bag where charitable funds were kept. Less money in the bag, less opportunity for him to filch.
During the last 60 years, federal government spending has expanded enormously, increasing from less than $100 billion per year to over $8.5 trillion! And, despite the lavish spending, there’s a constant cry for more: more for education, more for health care, more money for economic development and (of course) more for the poor. But as the federal government bag has gotten bigger, we’ve developed a real problem with thieves dipping into the bag to line their own pockets.
The vast amount spent on COVID-19 shutdown relief led to some particularly egregious examples of theft of government funds. In Minnesota, California, Texas, Florida, New York and elsewhere, fraudsters grabbed billions from the government’s big bag.
But the problem isn’t just — or even mainly — fraud. It’s the way that federal spending has helped government at every level pretend the scarcity principle doesn’t exist. State and local leaders should be focused on making tough decisions about priorities and debating how limited resources are going to be allocated among many conflicting priorities.
But, as soon as federal funds enter the picture, the decision-making process changes. States spend money, not on what’s most appropriate, but on what regulations say federal funds can and can’t be used for. We end up with construction projects that don’t need to be built because there is free federal money.
We get education programs that don’t match local needs because of free federal money. We get health care programs that make the system both more expensive and less efficient because of free federal money. We get environmental programs that are counterproductive boondoggles paid for by free federal money.
MORE: Art Marmorstein: Extend those crazy, lazy, hazy days of summer
Everything the federal government touches turns to pork. And woe to the political leaders who won’t go after the share of the pork the big-money interests among their constituents think ought to be theirs!
But why worry about inefficiency? We’ve repealed the law of scarcity. We can all be rich. We can all have everything we want. After all, the nation is $39 trillion in debt.
We can always just borrow more, can’t we?
