Why Do We Hate "Pork"

[iamjoy]

I think about this a lot, especially during a campaign season. A lot of politicians seems to act like "pork barrel spending" is a bad thing and they always have examples of funding projects that really do seem ridiculous.

But I wonder, is there one definition of "pork" or is it, to an extent, in the eye of the beholder? If my Congressman gets a big grant for researchers at the University of Central Florida to study bear migration near the Econlockhatchee River (a nearby water way), some might call that pork. But to me, he is bringing well paying research jobs to my area and helping determine the best way to protect the wildlife from development.

I personally think ethanol is a scam agribusiness has used to sucker environmentalists and others to get more money. But, if you're in Iowa you may think your state economy benefits when farmers have money and that ethanol, while not the panacea or magic bullet, has potential (if only it were funded better to make it more efficient, or whatever).

What if it's roads or community centers that get a nice fat funding grant from Congress? Those kind of projects improve the lives of people living in those areas.

So, what exactly is pork and if it's what I think it is, why does it get such a bad rap?

[1corona4u]

1. Some is worthwhile, and some is not...

but mccrap is a hypocrite to point to Obama with it, when his douchebag has had plenty of earmarks.

[MNDemNY]

2. We don't hate pork, we just hate the "other guy's" pork.

[dansolo]

3. It is the hidden pork that pisses me off

I don't mind the earmarks, as long as senators aren't able to sneak them in anonymously. I suspect that a lot of money has been funneled into Arizona through other means.

[grannie4peace]

4. it's those bridges to nowhere that are "bad"

[dkofos]

5. What are they complaining about. Total pork last year =$18 BILLION=2 WEEKS IN IRAQ

[Arkana]

6. I don't know, because it's delicious.

[Madam Mossfern]

7. But it's not kosher n/t

[nyhuskyfan]

8. Very true

I started this thread earlier...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7220481&mesg_id=7220481

McCain lumps all $18 billion in earmarks as if it was all wasteful spending. The thread above references and links to the Citizens Against Wasteful Spending list that McCain told everyone to look during the debate at yesterday. Many of the things on the list are earmarked for hospitals, health clinics, infrastructure, etc. There was one for New Orleans for Homeland Security preparation, which seems to make a lot of sense in the wake of Katrina. Admittedly, some earmarks might be things that our side would probably support but their side wouldn't (i.e. museums and exhibitis, drug rehab centers for poor people, job training centers for non-high school graduates). But McCain acts like all $18 billion is Bear DNA. And if Obama is trying to get money for his state to pay for equipment for a children's hospital, I think he's doing a good job of representing his constituents.

[The Magistrate]

9. As You Observe, Ma'am, 'Pork' Is Something That Benefits Someone Else....

The root of this is the idea that 'government waste' and 'inefficiency' are the reasons government costs what it does, and that people would not have to pay much in taxes if only 'waste' could be eliminated. This is patent nonesense, but like much patent nonesense, is widely believed. It is not that there is not waste and inefficiency in government, there is both. But the small bore items identified as such by various demagogues, who expend great effort to make people who do not think much believe are major proportions of the cost of government, are not a patch on what government spends, and must spend to do its job. To my view, the most wasteful government spending, and the greatest 'pork' in its budget, is the interest paid on the national debt. This buys nothing, and simply transfers wealth from the pockets of tax-payers to the pockets of bond-holders. But the demagogues who carry on about 'waste' and 'pork' speak nothing about this, indeed, they speak to draw eyes away from it....

[iamjoy]

13. I Like The Interest on the Debt

You see, I have some US Savings Bonds....

:evilgrin:

So, we call it pork, but it really is all in the perspective.

I agree it should be open. And I would prefer it be relevant, but that's not always how deals get made in Congress. If they didn't compromise, nothing would ever get done.

[jody]

10. I love pork but it must be thoroughly cooked to avoid illnesses like trichinosis and cronyism. n/t

[grantcart]

11. there are abuses but a lot of it is good

My brother from central Washington is still holding onto McCain because of the pork. After a while I changed subjects and then came back and asked him if they still had the laser show that they projected on the side of Grand Coulee Dam to draw tourists?

"Oh hell yes that is extremely popular and without it the tourist season would die".


Of course I told him that pork you didn't mind did you. A lot of 'pork' are for small projects that don't make sense in a national setting but make perfect sense in the local context - and the whole idea of letting local people have more control of their money is supposed to be a 'Republican' principle.


Oh and the bear study in Montana? It was requested by conservatives in Montana to be able to challenge the bear being listed on the endangered species list. And you know what they were right. The DNA survey was able to provide an accurate census of bears that is much higher than expected and should allow more access to restricted areas.

The likely result - more oil drilling in Montana - Why are you against oil drilling John McCain?

[iamjoy]

12. McCain Voted For The Bear Study Too

At least according to factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

[spanone]

14. one senator's pork is another senator's caviar

[msallied]

15. There are some things the Federal Government should pay for and things that they shouldn't.

But what it comes down to is that we elect Senators and Representatives from our state to go to those Feds and help us make our states better places. If that means they need to ask for a little money to help with tourism and infrastructure, fine. If it's to build a bridge to an island with fifty inhabitants, no.

[Igel]

16. Because there's a usual process, and pork circumvents it.

It says that lobbying--a political activity--provides a better set of funding priorities than the budgeting process that works for the rest of the budget.

The money would be budgeted in any event. It's not usually additional funding. Instead, it's saying you get $X, and of those dollars, x, y, and z are the amounts for projects that a congressperson will decide.

Your traffic engineers may not think those projects are important. Your agriculture folks may not think those projects are important. The NIH, NEA, and various grant-administering organizations may have looked at the proposals and decided that, given what they've been told, there are more important projects that they'd like to fund. But because a Congressman wants more money to go to his district or pet project, or to the lobbyist that bought him an especially nice ticket at a sports game, that's where the money should go--academic or infracture-based merit be damned, the only merit that counts is political merit and the senator or congressman's vast experience as a traffic engineer, research grant evaluater, or economist. Or, more likely, one of his staffer's vast experience.

Some highly meritorious projects would be funded under both systems. Usually in these cases, however, the earmark grants additional funding (otherwise they probably wouldn't be earmarks), and that constitutes a de facto cut to funding for other projects. More often, earmarks are for projects that wouldn't have been funded, or would have gotten low funding priority.

This isn't always bad. Sometimes the budget-preparing agencies have their own biases and agendas. But replacing one politically warped set of budget planners with a single lobbyist-influenced politician usually doesn't lead to the most meritorious or equitable projects receiving the funding they want, and the possibility of earmarks just makes for more lobbying and more lobbyists. Oddly, most congressfolk are proud of this--unless it's more politically expedient to suddenly "see the light" and be a convert against earmarks.

[Orsino]

17. It's part of a senator's job to try to bring home some federal money.

It's one reason s/he goes to Washington.

Pork means earmarks one's opponent has been successful in winning, I guess.