This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Welcome to Behind the Lines, a weekly conversation with Salt Lake Tribune cartoonist Pat Bagley and BYU economist Val Lambson.
Bagley: For the genesis of this week's "Behind the Lines" cartoon I have to thank Tom Wharton. Tom wandered over from his Tribune "Outdoors" desk and shared his experience of attending the reopening of the quarry site in Dinosaur National Monument. The original quarry building was closed in 2006 when pieces of it began narrowly missing some of the more than 300,000 annual visitors who came to see the enclosed rock face holding thousands of dinosaur bones. There were no plans to rebuild. One of Utah's premier tourist sites was off-limits until funds suddenly became available through the 2009 Obama stimulus.
Tom noted that Utah Gov. Gary Herbert never mentioned that fact in his speech at the reopening, though he played up the importance of the building to the local tourist economy. I give Herbert lumps in this cartoon, but he is merely doing what many other GOP politicians have done who were critical of The Stimulus. They complain loudly about how it doesn't create jobs, then show up at the ribbon cutting to take credit for the jobs it created.
Lambson: I am as interested in dinosaurs as the next red-blooded American, and I am opposed to pieces of the quarry building falling on visitors. (This states the obvious, but we liberty-lovers get accused of so many things!) Your clever cartoon has a hidden metaphor, however. The notion that temporary stimulus packages create jobs on net is a dinosaur that should be extinct. Unfortunately, it is not and does a lot of damage while it thrashes around. The funds did not suddenly become available by magic; they came from somewhere else. People who push for government spending tend to have this in common: they emphasize benefits and underestimate or ignore costs. That's how we got iProvo, light rail, and so on and on and on.
Bagley: Did I mention that it came in under budget? Instead of the projected $14 million, the cost to taxpayers is under $10 million. Still, as you point out, that is money out the door. In the five years that it was closed, visits to Dinosaur National Monument fell by almost half — besides lost entry fees, that directly translated to missing local revenue. With the center open, tourists and their money will come back. Motels, restaurants, souvenir shops and touring companies that have been barely hanging on may soon be hiring. The taxpayer's modest investment in capital improvement in this case will be paid back, with interest, in just a few years.
I can't speak to iProvo since I don't know much about it, but an example of government spending pennies now to avoid shelling out dollars later can be seen straight up Rock Canyon in Provo. Cascade Mountain still bears the scars of terracing to prevent the flooding that periodically scoured North Provo. Without a project that was begun in 1936 under FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps, the Provo Temple might be in danger of being swept into Utah Lake.
Lambson: The point is not whether people who receive benefits from the government gain, the point is whether they gain more than others lose. People who didn't go to Dinosaur National Monument didn't just stay home with the lights out. They went somewhere else to spend their vacation money. If you think that the government should be in the business of protecting public lands, that's one thing. But don't defend it as economic stimulus.
Bagley: I have my doubts it's the zero-sum game you describe, but there's also this: I called the Best Western in Vernal and asked the helpful desk clerk, Jessica, how many of their guests were foreign. She said about 30 percent and that they'd come for the dinosaurs. Stimulus that also helps our balance of trade—sweet!
By the way, I enjoyed your recommended article by John Cochrane on the TARP bailout. I found this one by Ezra Klein that people might find interesting.
Lambson: Field work. Impressive! However, is the implication really that the foreigners would not have come to the U.S. at all, or just that they wouldn't have come to Vernal? More important, however, is the broader question of whether government can systematically choose good investment projects better than the private sector. As you might say, I have my doubts about that.
I am already looking forward to next week. Perhaps we will find time to discuss how the George W. Bush presidency turned you toward big government.
Behind the Lines welcomes your comments. In the spirit of informative dialogue, please keep them respectful and to the point. To encourage this dream, Behind the Lines will post the Top Comment, based on coherence and effective mashaling of facts, from the previous week's postings.