A curious question struck me today, and a few minutes of googling didn't turn up any reasonable answer despite it being the kind of thing people should want to know, so I thought I'd ask here.
Suppose we are budgeting for a large, congressionally-mandated project, like the Space Shuttle. Like any big project, congress starts inserting pork requirements to funnel money to their home territories: Senator Buttercup wants all the whatsits built in Alabama, while Rep Snowball insists that the gizmos be assembled in Oregon, etc. Eventually, literally every single piece of the project is beholden to some kind of pork or other, yet all of the pieces are producible and necessary, i.e. there are no earmarked funds that are strictly wasted.
Given this situation, how much more will the project cost, when compared to a roughly equivalent but less porcine hypothetical?
Suppose we are budgeting for a large, congressionally-mandated project, like the Space Shuttle. Like any big project, congress starts inserting pork requirements to funnel money to their home territories: Senator Buttercup wants all the whatsits built in Alabama, while Rep Snowball insists that the gizmos be assembled in Oregon, etc. Eventually, literally every single piece of the project is beholden to some kind of pork or other, yet all of the pieces are producible and necessary, i.e. there are no earmarked funds that are strictly wasted.
Given this situation, how much more will the project cost, when compared to a roughly equivalent but less porcine hypothetical?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1pcJxUf
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire