Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) released today his annual Wastebook, which details lavish government funding on obscure projects.
“As you look at these examples, ask yourself: at a time when we are borrowing over $44,000 for every person in the country, are these items a priority and are they a federal responsibility?” writes Coburn in the introduction, adding that the cost of the 100 projects he highlights totals over $11.5 billion. Here’s some of the “best” taxpayer-funded items:
● $1.8 million to the Neon Boneyard Park and Museum, which collects and displays discarded neon Las Vegas signs.
● $2.9 million to a group of professors at University of California-Irvine for research on internet games such as World of Warcraft and Second Life and how, according to the university’s press release, they “can help organizations collaborate and compete more effectively in the global marketplace.”
● $239,100 to Stanford University for a study on how people date and find love online.
● $137,530 to a Dartmouth professor Mary Flanagan to make, according to Wastebook, a “video game called ‘Layoff,’ a puzzle-style game in which players fire as many people as they can as quickly as possible.”
● $150,000 to the Vermont town of Monkton to erect signs warning drivers to look out for salamanders crossing the road.
● $47.6 million to Atlanta, Georgia to build a streetcar system — on the exact same route as an existing subway system.
Read about the rest of the projects here.
I'm in favor of signs warning drivers of impending wildlife crossing. We have plenty of signs warning of deer in the roads, don't we? Squished salamanders, aside from the tragic loss of their lives, could represent skidding hazards.
I have no problem with this one, but the federal government shouldn't put the signs up, the state and federal lawmakers should.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's wrong with the UC-Irvine study? If they figure out how to make American created software more competitive, that $2.9 million will pay off a hundred times. Software is an industry that can generate lots of profits and jobs for the American economy, shouldn't we be supporting it? Researchers get their research funded and a promising American industry gets more globally competitive. What better use of research dollars could there be?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedidnt the religious right learn their lesson when bobby jindal made fun of volcano warning systems on national tv?
BTW, why is the government running the military? why don't the get off of our backs instead of jamming national defense down our throats?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason: Indeed, especially since Second Life isn't a game and World of Warcraft is big enough to have all sorts of real world effects (e.g. search on gold farming). The people involved in these multi-"player" efforts at all levels (from programmers to players) are inventing a part of the future today and study by outsiders not caught up in the moment could be fruitful.
It is interesting that there are very few lists like this that don't include at least one potentially or unquestionably worthwhile item; optics count for more than reality and we also see an illustration of Hayek's point about the issues of high quality information reaching the top of a command economy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou guys are missing the point. Many of these projects may very well have potential, but it is not the federal government's job to fund them. If UC Irvine thinks their WoW study is worthwhile then I'm sure they can find a way to fund it. Only projects that serve a clear national interest should be funded by congress. If a person's first reaction upon hearing about your project is to laugh, chances are it does not meet the criteria.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, we need to have the taxpayers fork over $137,530 to Dartmouth professor Mary Flanagan to make, according to Wastebook, a “video game called ‘Layoff,’ a puzzle-style game in which players fire as many people as they can as quickly as possible,” because:
"Dartmouth College’s endowment produced a 10.0 percent return for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010...
The value of the endowment increased by $173 million over the prior fiscal year and as of June 30, 2010, was valued at $2.998 billion." External Link
And we need to have taxpayers pay $239,100 to Stanford University for a study on how people date and find love online, because:
"Stanford’s $13.8 billion endowment (as of Aug. 31, 2010) provides an enduring source of financial support for fulfillment of the university’s mission of teaching, learning and research." External Link
I swear, I'm going to get a government grant for research to see if throwing away my alarm clock lets me sleep later in the morning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLina, exactly. The UC-Irvine thing is included on the list because the word "Warcraft" makes it a joke. Haw haw, taxpayer dollars on Warcraft. Ok, well substitute the NFL for Warcraft. Can people see how getting China, India and Pakistan interested in the NFL would bring in dollars (and cultural influence) to the United States? Well World of Warcraft costs $15 a month, so it brings in much more money per fan than the NFL and employs people under 400 lbs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWouldn't it be much cheaper to make a sign telling salamanders not to cross the road?
They'd be much smaller.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If UC Irvine thinks their WoW study is worthwhile then I'm sure they can find a way to fund it. "
Why are you sure? Because it's "worthwhile" the money magically appears?
"Only projects that serve a clear national interest should be funded by congress. "
The UC-Irvine project is R&D for an emerging American industry that can bring in dollars from all over the world without sending any jobs there. Isn't that in the national interest?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe 47 Million for the Atlanta streetcar thing was proudly announced. My first thought was all of the disruption of traffic while they built it. My daughter's first thought was what that money could do for education.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe government has no business cutting checks drawn against our taxpayer money for nonsense like this.
What's the problem?
For one, it's this mentality:
@Jason RE: "that $2.9 million will pay off a hundred times"
I'd call that a Common Belief Fallacy, but I'm not sure it is all that common.
So, you say this. No doubt the people who lobbied for it say this. When it doesn't come to pass - SHOW ME $290,000,000 IN RETURNS, BIG MOUTH - nobody ever gets pilloried. That's right, I want to see all the Ice Age/Global Starvation/Overpopulation nimrods from the 1970's in stocks in the town square. Today's man-caused Global Warming lunatic socialist power-grabbers would be a bit more careful - dare I suggest, scientific - if we did that.
Jason wasn't even responsible enough to use the "weasel word" "should" - you specifically typed "*will* pay off".
Show me a venture capitalist who *WOULDN'T* invest a scant $2,900,000 in exchange for a $290,000,000 return. Hillary Clinton would be all over that.
Implicit is the overall theory that "the government is here to help". I reject that.
This - and a WHOLE LOT more - spending needs to cease.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUC Irvine's endowment is about $206 million. The total endowment for the entire University of california is about $7.8 BILLION (figures as of 6/30/09). External Link
I am open to the possibility that this may indeed be a worthwhile project. Show me the evidence, in the form of your calculations that tell me what my return on investment will be. Your answer will include numbers that show how quickly I will get my investment back.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOrder, VC's can't always invest in research that will benefit an entire industry. You can't patent business techniques. That's why there's no profit in this kind of research, but it can generate enormous profits for American businesses. I don't know how much money this will generate but if there's a very slight chance they'll figure out how to get a billion people hooked on World of Warcraft it's a chance worth taking. There's an enormous financial upside to that for our country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBernie Gilbert, thanks for the homework assignment. Your share of this project's costs are a very small fraction of a penny. Your share of this project's potential upside is very large: A new American industry adding to our GNP and balance of trade for decades, which will help your retirement plan and your standard of living.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusecentrist: "centrist", my left ear. If when a conservative talks you reflexively shout "religious right", you're a leftist.
Jason: I spent stupid hours in ICC25 raids and all the way back to MC40(if you don't know what I mean, congratulations).
I don't think that the purpose of this study has anything to do with the software industry. If it did, I would think it was ridiculous. Blizz is very obviously able to compete internationally and does not need government money to help that process along. The money would be better spent trying to get foreign governments to respect intellectual property. If this study were going to provide information that would help the software industry itself, Blizz would spend a little pocket change and fund the study itself.
I do think WoW is an interesting test bed for economics studies due to the well-developed pseudo economy, and I would bet that's what this study really is. I still think 2.9 million from the federal government is a lot in a time of mounting deficits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason, your answer is the typical weasel answer I see all the time (I live near DC) from people who think there's a magic money machine that pays for everything. I note there isn't a single number anywhere in your answer, which shows that you have no idea whether this is a profitable investment.
Here's a clue for you: If it were a profitable investment, your UC-Irvine professors would have no trouble getting venture capital for it. The reason they're going to Uncle Sam for it is because when they go to people who are in the business of making money by loaning money, they get asked the same question I asked you, and they give the same lame answer you gave me. And the venture capitalists and banks say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Jason RE: "Order, VC's can't always invest in research that will benefit an entire industry. You can't patent business techniques. That's why there's no profit in this kind of research, but it can generate enormous profits for American businesses. I don't know how much money this will generate but if there's a very slight chance they'll figure out how to get a billion people hooked on World of Warcraft it's a chance worth taking. There's an enormous financial upside to that for our country."
You're in a hole, dude.
Either you can External Link
(SFW brief YouTube Link), in which case, the private sector can and should be funding this...
...or it will be that same "unexpected heartbreaking disappointment" I experienced when I realized the X-Ray Specs from the back of my Ghost Rider (70's version, of course) comic were bogus.
Come on. If I was a big government leftist, I'd just say, "Hey, I like government money being used to finance university studies. They may or may not produce financial gain, but the actual performance of even the most superficially absurd studies bolsters our academic proficiency as a nation...blah blah blah...[insert feel good thing here]...[insert doomsday alternative here]...[make it for the children or minorities or women or homosexuals here]...". You know the drill. At least be honest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBernie, research is not always profitable, but it drives profits. It's not hard to understand. Government researchers invented the internet (the transmission and routing protocol tcp/ip). No VC would have invested in this research because there's no profit: No one has to pay anyone to use this protocol. But the research has created billions in wealth for this country. That's the point of government research: To do research that create wealth for the country but not the researcher.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's a link to a fuller description of the study:
External Link
It's not about Warcraft really, but it's also not something I see much need to spend government money on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Jason RE: "Government researchers invented the internet"
...for the purposes of national defense...a Federal power clearly enumerated in the Constitution.
Thanks for playing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse