The Ike Dike

Texas politicians have been pressuring the Trump Administration to fund the Ike Dike as a part of infrastructure improvements. On the surface, this might seem like a great benefit for Texans and a number of justifications have been offered, including issues of national security. But surface benefits are only a part of the story.

While Texas politicians are pleading for taxpayers in Ohio, Alaska, and North Dakota to pay for the dike, politicians from those states are pleading for taxpayers to pay for projects that will benefit their constituents. Stripped of all the claims of national security and the “public interest,” the debate will really come down to politics–which projects will deliver the most votes.

In other words, who will pay for buying votes?

It might be tempting for Texans to support a federally funded Ike Dike. But such support comes with a cost. If we support forcing taxpayers from other states to finance our pet project, we can’t complain when we are forced to finance theirs. Principles matter. If we accept the principle that the “public interest” justifies taking money from taxpayers across the country for a project in Texas, then we must accept our money being taken for projects in their districts.

This is nothing more than cronyism. Texas politicians are trying to bring home the bacon, and politicians from other states are doing the same thing. Some of us will win in the short-term by getting our pet project financed, but in the end, everyone is a loser. Ultimately, we will pay for other’s pet project.

If we want to protect our property rights–and our money is our property–then we must reject the entire notion of the “public interest.” The “public interest” is an undefined and undefinable idea. It is used to justify taking money from some for the alleged benefit of others.