|
As The Nerve has highlighted, South Carolina taxpayers are shelling out millions to pay for lobbying activities aimed at pulling down more federal dollars. Many of these efforts have been touted as providing “big returns” to communities – namely, jobs, jobs, jobs.
But the White House has recently abandoned the method by which it “counts” jobs saved or created by the federal stimulus, raising questions as to how effective such spending really has been.
Here in South Carolina, the stimulus was defended as being absolutely necessary to keeping kids in the classroom and prisoners in jail. But, as previously reported, millions of stimulus dollars have been funneled to projects that have nothing to do with education or corrections.
While our previous research focused on questionable appropriations to various agencies, another recurring problem is the outrageous cost associated with the specific stimulus contracts themselves. Increasingly, the strategy in spending stimulus dollars seems to have been to simply throw money at projects and hope they somehow result in “jobs saved or created.” In short, the Keynesian economic theory upon which the stimulus is based is about making work and destroying wealth.
Using the website www.stimuluswatch.org, Policy Council staff combed through detailed listings of all stimulus projects. That research turned up the list below – 10 of the worst stimulus contracts in South Carolina:
1) Rehabbing the Charleston County Airport runway: $708,823
Jobs “created”: 0
This isn’t the Charleston International Airport, it’s the small, county airport. The public does not use this airport; it is mainly for private, chartered trips. Why force taxpayers to pay for a runway rehab? Moreover, this is another example of temporary jobs masking as “created jobs.” If the government is so worried about losing teachers’ jobs and law enforcement positions, why spend almost $1 million on an airport that seems to cater to wealthier travelers and other private parties?
2) Hiring a nurse family practitioner and doctor in Orangeburg: $439,471
Jobs “created”: 1
The national average for a nurse practitioner is $82,000; for a doctor, $160,000. That is for full-time positions. Compared to the other projects listed here, this might make it seem that taxpayers are getting a good deal. But there’s a question as to whether these are part-time positions because the given responsibilities are to “provide care on Saturdays and for extended evening hours during the week.”
3) Studies on justice theory and social dilemma at the University of South Carolina: $134,921
Jobs “created”: 1
A six-figure salary for a graduate research assistant? We should all be so lucky to land jobs like that. Hopefully, these studies will focus on the injustice of taking taxpayer dollars and wasting them on projects such as these. But at least it’s not another global warming study.
4) Sediment research for the benthic ecology field: $591,351
Jobs “created”: 2
The average public school teacher in South Carolina earns $42,207. Instead of funding this obscure scientific research project, policymakers could have hired 14 more teachers.
5) Research on the candida fungus and its pathways: $220,198
Jobs “created”: 0
Likewise, do taxpayers really need to be paying for this? If it’s so important, private investors would fund it.
6) Studying myelin lipid pathways: $140,131
Jobs “created”: 0
This funding is dedicated to hiring 1 postdoc scholar at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). At Stanford University, the minimum starting salary for a postdoc ranges from $37,368 and $51,552 based on years of experience. So even if MUSC is on the same scale, where is the remaining $88,579 going?
7) Modeling family factors in the transmission of wealth: $226,333
Jobs “created”: 0
This study might be defensible if it had something to do with creating wealth today, but the project focuses on “specifying conditions under which men were able to accumulate wealth between 1850 and 1870 in a native born US population of related individuals.” Shelf science at its worst.
8) Picnic shelters: $55,100
Jobs “created”: 1
Typically, picnic shelters are pretty simple structures. For $55,100, these better be the Taj Mahal of picnic shelters. In any case, it’s unclear whether this is for a full-time, part-time, or temporary position.
9) Work study for students: $61,125; $45,332; $34,608
Jobs “created”: 0
Nobody can deny that higher education is expensive and oftentimes students require work on the side. But work-study jobs are part-time and are not going to drive long-term economic growth. In fact, more than 2,600 of South Carolina stimulus “jobs” created were summer jobs.
10) Develop animal models for the study of alcohol action: $94,301
Jobs created: 1
When the federal stimulus was being (briefly) debated in Congress, there was fear the financial crisis would cripple the nation. When did additional funding for research into “defining ethanol inhibition” fall into the category of saving the economy?
These 10 projects represent just a small sample of dozens of questionable expenditures of varying size and scope, many of which are National Institutes of Health grants. In all, South Carolina received 130 such grants – 81 of which were allocated to MUSC – for a total of $38,613,286. While such research may be important, it is clear the stimulus is not being used to save teaching and law enforcement jobs. Moreover, many of the positions “created” are temporary.
Is this the best allocation of taxpayer resources? You be the judge and visit www.stimuluswatch.org to see for yourself.
Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation. Copyright 2010. South Carolina Policy Council Education Foundation, 1323 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201.
|
Research and Publications 
