On Congress and the Congressional Big Dig

The Corner writes:

Anybody who has walked by the east side of the Capitol in the last few years knows that there's a big construction project going on. It's for an underground visitors center. Here's the shocking news: It's costing far more than originally planned and taking years longer than expected to complete . . . . If Congress cannot properly oversee a project that's taking place in its own backyard—literally!—then how can it oversee anything?

Good question. The project they're talking about is the new Vistor's Center to the US Capitol building.

It was first meant to be opened in 2005, but the opening date has been repeatedly pushed back and the cost overruns have meant that the price tag has doubled.

Now, some of the reasons for the cost increase are reasonable - in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the need to add security screening facilities became that much more apparent and the facility needed to handle a larger number of people. All visitors to the Capitol would be screened in this facility.

However, some costs make little sense. Congress wanted to have more conference and office space, and when it comes to outfitting Congressional space, no expense is spared. Those are places that would not be generally accessible to the public.

Among the facilities included are:

Congress appropriated funding to outfit the space in 2001. The designs were completed in 2003, and work began in 2005.

The House got, among other things, a regal two-story hearing room in its wing, said D. Rodman Henderer, a senior vice president with the Baltimore architectural firm RTKL, which designed the center.

The Senate wanted a series of small hearing rooms on its side, along with a huge TV-radio studio, complete with makeup facilities, for senators to create messages they could send to constituents, Henderer said.

I find it curious that among those supporting this expenditure are Mary Landrieu (D-LA), whose home state is still suffering from the after effects of the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Did she not think that saving money in one place (like in Congress' own backyard) could be used to fund programs in her home state? No, she, like most members of Congress think that revenue from taxpayers is a piggy bank that never ends. She and the other members of Congress benefit the most from the profligate spending and taxpayer interests are a distant concern.

I've seen this before. John Miller thinks this reminds him of Boston's Big Dig. I have another program that is similarly bloated and plagued by cost overruns. Can you say Secaucus Transfer?

I knew you could.

That project was originally given a price tag of $250 million to link nearly all NJ Transit lines in one place and serve as a hub for new retail and office construction. Instead, the facility is underutilized, no retail or office construction has taken place, and the price tag still isn't entirely clear - the estimates range from $450 million to $750 million and more - not counting what debt payments taxpayers are on the hook for.

Government agencies, and the federal government itself, does not always act with the best interests of taxpayers in mind. They engage in profligate spending on projects of dubious need - the Bridge to Nowhere comes to mind.

At this point, the spending will continue until someone in Congress demands accountability or the project is eventually completed.