SUPER BOWL SCANDAL

By J. Bradley Jansen
Free Congress Commentary
February 6, 2002

Last Sunday, we were treated to an upset Super Bowl game that came down to the
wire for a win (by the aptly-named for the times) New England Patriots football
team. In addition to a great game, we were treated to the best advertisements in
the industry. However, sandwiched between these treats, a scandal ensued.

Television ads with unidentified men and women claiming that they helped “kill a
judge,” “blow up buildings,” “murder families in Colombia,” “kidnap people’s
dads,” “kill policemen” and helped “the bomber get a fake passport” were
interspersed as well.

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) reportedly spent
$3.4 million to air two 30-second commercials during the Super Bowl to make it the
most expensive single government ad purchase in history. Wasting millions of
taxpayer dollars is something the Republicans claimed they were trying to stop.
They got elected on that promise. At a time when we are returning to deficit
spending and still trying to reduce the tax burden and protect the Social Security
so-called surplus and other sacred budgetary cows, this TV expenditure is
outrageous.

When Republicans were acting like Republicans, they passed a budget in 1996 that
cut spending 60% for the Drug-Free Schools and Communities programs. Then
President Clinton vetoed that more fiscally-responsible approach.

Commenting on the issue, John Walters, then former, now current, “Drug Czar”
explained, "Teaching children that drug use is wrong and harmful is primarily the
responsibility of parents and local communities, youth organizations, religious
institutions, schools and police. Federal funding is neither necessary nor
sufficient for conveying this lesson by word and deed ... Parents, teachers, and
communities should not leave to the federal government a responsibility that
really belongs to them ("Big Government Junkies," Policy Review, March-April
1996)."

Such public education campaigns not only waste public funds that could be better
spent (or best, returned to the taxpayer) but they are a “lazy person's way of
trying to appear they're doing something" as Mr. Walters used to explain (Dallas
Morning News, June 26, 1997). One would hope that a man of his credentials could
take over the ONDCP bureaucracy and establish conservative principles of
government.

One of the principles of good government that all ideologies should share is to
end policies and programs that do not have the desired effect. As the 2001
National Money Laundering Strategy points out, we need established goals with
quantifiable ways of measuring the success toward reaching those goals. Spending
on programs that fail should be terminated.

As Mr. Walters explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 23, 1997, "The
obvious question is, what's not working, in terms of spending? We know what's not
working in terms of leadership. The response is, from the administration, 'we'd
like $175 million or so to do public service ads.' Well, why is that $100 million
going to make a difference? It's hard to argue it's going to hurt in this
environment, so that makes it difficult to be against this course. But the
question is why is a glitzy public service campaign the best way to put additional
incremental resources?"
To put it in perspective, the Super Bowl ad purchase makes some sense considering
that the 2001 budget for the ONDCP's anti-drug media campaign was $195 million.
The “National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign” is part of former President
Clinton’s five-year $1.5 billion program that began in 1997. If we are going to
waste billions of hard-earned dollars, competing with Brittany Spears makes as
much sense as anything else.

The premise of the ad campaign is that there is a link between illicit drug use
and terrorism. The simplistic view that we can prevent future terrorist events if
everyone stopped abusing drugs because of a 30-second sound-bite belies a more
complicated reality. Not only does it take a very limited budget to carry out many
terrorist attacks, but other parts of the federal budget routinely subsidize the
drug trade and its links to terrorism.

For years, U.S. taxpayer money lined the pockets of General Noriega in Panama,
General Montesinos of Peru and others who were active in the drug trade and were
hated by their own people which caused resentment against the United States
(creating the conditions ripe for terrorist recruitment). How much money is
funneled through the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, USAID and other
foreign aid programs to the same effect? Say what you will about the Taliban, but
it stood firmly and aggressively against the poppy trade. The new Afghanistan is
another matter. Clearly our policies are mixed at best.

President Clinton is going to be remembered by history for his lack of an

understanding of what the definition of the word “is” is and for his inability to
make tough choices. It is much easier to just promise everything to everyone. The
popularity it earns is as shallow as it is fleeting.

The question now is whether President Bush, the ONDCP’s Walters and the
Congressional Republicans have the insight and the strength to make tough choices.
The federal budget is an exercise in scarcity-resources are limited when weighed
against the consequences to the rest of the economy and its impact on businesses
and families. Let’s hope they have what it takes to stop this offensive waste.