Benefits vs. costs of govt activism (revisited)

Another unsatisfying effort from the C-J this morning (the link goes to a related article; I can't find today's update on their website) on the costs and benefits of government activism...

My blog entry on this is too to post here, but here's the link, followed by a summary of my conclusion...

Let's look at the numbers presented in the article-- sadly, just the benefits-- and then try to match it to the relevant costs....

OK, now to the unanswered and unquestioned costs of this government spending-- and its impact on Louisville and Kentucky....

From the details presented, it's difficult to tell whether (or how) Louisville and Kentucky got a good return on their "investment". At the least, it should be explained how $1,850 in costs per person is beneficial to Louisvillians when they only receive $71 in benefits per person.

And of course, all of this misses the crucial constitutional, philosophical and practical issues of "federalism"-- why is the federal government involved in financing "economic development projects across Kentucky" or "new sewers in Shively"?

In any case, as I wrote yesterday, one would hope that the media would do a better job in objectively and comprehensively covering the costs and benefits of government. Although it's difficult to answer such a question, it's at least interesting to consider when such failures are a function of ignorance, laziness, or a statist bias that prefers not to talk about the costs of government.