It's been a while since we've talked about "pork barrel" spending coming out of Washington.   But here's an example of how one man's "pork" is another man's "urban renewal".

The General Services Administration (the government agency tasked with controlling rental of government property and purchasing for government) has a decision to make.    One of their regional offices is currently housed in an older facility.   The once bustling facility was built in the mid-1940's and until recently housed three different divisions of government.  Two of those divisions have moved to other areas of the local municipality.    The GSA wants to move out as well.   They have three options:

A)  They could rent from space already built and pay to have the space modified to fit thier requirements.  The local municipality has a large number of unoccupied office space in their downtown area.

B)  They could also hire a private company to construct a new building to GSA specifications that is owned by the private company and then leased to the GSA. 

C)  Or they could wait on their move.   Submit a proposal to Congress to appropriate the necessary funding to erect a building that is owned and operated by the GSA.   

Choice C is actually the cheapest route to take for the federal taxpayers.   Over the course of time, it is significantly cheaper to own the building outright than it is to pay for modifications to current available facilities or to pay a middle man to build the building for them.

The problem with choice C is that local politicians want the GSA to move thier operations to a specific location within their city in hopes of continuing a "re-vitalization" of that area.   It would bring increased revenues to the area hotels and restaurants.  It would be good for the city if the federal government chose (A), but it would also waste federal tax dollars.   So it's a form of "pork barrel" spending.

The GSA however, has stood it's ground.    They are seriously considering delaying thier move and using option C which would save federal tax dollars at the expense of the local economy.

Is this good or bad?   Local politicians from both sides of the aisle have voiced thier preference for choice A.   Are they trying to bring home the "bacon" for thier constituents or are they taking "pork" from the rest of the country's tax payers?   Which do you prefer and why?

Does it make a difference if you are told that the city in question is Kansas City?   That Sens. Bond, McCaskill and Rep. Cleaver are all for "pork barrel spending" in this case.   Because it would be good for downtown business.  There's a lot of empty spaces sitting around in offices downtown.   It would do a lot for the local corporation that rents to them.   But everything it does for the local economy will be on the back of the federal tax payer.  How do you feel about pork barrel spending now?

One last ethical question for you.   Regardless of where you come down on the issue of where the GSA moves, whether you're voting your local dollar or your federal dollar....should Sen. Kit Bond hold up the confirmation hearing of Obama's nominee to head the GSA?  Because that's what's happening.  Sen. Bond has put a hold on the confirmation hearing of Martha Johnson until she agrees to move the GSA downtown.   And that sounds like blackmail to me!  Anyone want to explain why that's an ethical move on his part?