[ad_1]
Pork barrel spending is when legislators direct spending to benefit their district or constituents. It has a controversial reputation and is often used to buy votes. Some argue it is necessary spending, while others say eliminating it would save money. Public works bills often contain pork barrel expenses, and it is rare for Congress to approve an expense bill without it. Opponents argue that the savings made by eliminating pork would be enormous. Defenders argue that much of what is called pork is necessary spending.
Pork barrel spending is the controversial practice of a legislator directing spending specifically, often to the benefit of the district or constituents of the requesting member. It acquired an unsavory reputation in the United States after the Civil War, when Congressional spending bills routinely included a variety of such expenses. Despite the controversy and outcry, elected officials are often judged on their ability to “bring the bacon” and those who are successful often highlight this fact in their re-election campaigns.
One of the earliest examples of pork barrel spending was attempted in 1817, when U.S. Senator John Calhoun (Democratic-Republican, South Carolina) proposed legislation to use the Second Bank of the United States’ earnings bonus to finance the construction of roads to the nation’s western frontier. It is considered pork barrel spending because it benefited a relatively small group at the expense of all taxpayers; President James Madison vetoed it. Public works bills often contain a large amount of pork barrel expenses, but it is rare for Congress to approve an expense bill of any kind that does not contain pork, as it is also called. The same is true in state and local legislatures in the United States and in most governments around the world.
Public interest groups have identified a number of characteristics of pork barrel spending. It generally benefits a primarily special interest or local community, and hearings are rarely held to examine it. Another type of pork involves designating a specific company to carry out a project, without awarding the contract on the basis of a tender. On the other hand, if both houses of Congress independently propose an expense, or the expense is specifically requested by the president, it escapes the unbecoming characterization of being a pig.
Opponents of pork barrel spending cite a variety of reasons for their opposition. They argue that it is used to buy the votes of lawmakers—that is, in exchange for one vote on a bill, a lawmaker will be rewarded with funding for a pet project, often included in the very bill to be voted on. Lawmakers who require pork, they say, often use that money to repay political favors. For example, a construction project in a representative’s home district could mean hundreds of jobs, benefiting organized labor, businesses and local political leaders with ties to both.
Opponents also say that if all pork barrel spending were eliminated, the savings made by the government would be enormous. Embarrassing projects like the famous Bridge to Nowhere are held up by naysayers as examples of why it should be banned. Authorized by Congress in 2005, the bridge, which would have served a community of fewer than 100 people at a cost of nearly US$400 million (USD), generated such controversy that Congress removed its funding that same year. but the controversy survived the president’s 2008 campaign.
Defenders of barrel-of-pork spending point out that it is paid for with existing appropriations, not added to them—that is, if $100 billion is allocated to the Department of Defense (DoD) and Congress authorizes $10 billion of barrels of pork Defense-related projects, there are only $90 billion left to spend on the Department of Defense. Eliminating pork wouldn’t save money, they say, it would just bring it back to the Department of Defense budget. Indeed, they say, much of what is called pork is actually necessary spending: road repairs, for example, might be called pork by some, but if so, no road would ever be repaired. It is argued that agricultural subsidies are necessary to keep prices affordable for consumers and also to prevent small farmers from going out of business. Another issue is the constitutional mandate that Congress directs the spending of money: the point made is that if appropriations are simply handed over to executive departments, they will often do the same things with money: reward friends and punish enemies, buy votes to Congress by strategically awarding contracts and authorizing projects; and generates support for friendly elected officials by placing federal projects in their districts.
[ad_2]