THE STRUCTURE OF CONGRESS| 273THE POLITICS OF PORK
The infamous “bridge to nowhere,” a $435 million project to con-
nect Ketchikan, Alaska, with a barely inhabited island, is one of
the most famous examples of wasteful pork-barrel spending, but
it is unusual only in its scale rather than its kind. It is also unusual
because the outcry over the bridge prompted Alaska to pull the
plug on the project, whereas most pork-barrel spending survives.
Pork typically takes the form of earmarked funding for a specifi c
project that is not subjected to standard, neutral spending formu-
las or a competitive process.
One tactic legislators often use to win approval for pork is to
insert it into emergency spending bills that are expected to pass,
such as disaster relief for fl ood and hurricane victims, spending
for national security after the September 11 attacks, or funding
for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the $636.3
billion 2010 defense appropriations bill included $128.3 bil-
lion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was stuffed with
1,719 earmarks worth $7.6 billion.a One controversial earmark
was $2.5 billion for ten C-17 transport planes that had not been
requested by the Pentagon. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.)
opposed the earmark, saying that the bill would “fund the pur-
chase of new aircraft that we neither need nor can afford....
That would have a signifi cant impact on our ability to provide the
day-to-day operational funding that our servicemen and women
and their families deserve.” Other earmarks in that bill included
$23 million for the Hawaii Healthcare Network, $18.9 million for
the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate, and $20 million
for the National World War II museum in New Orleans.
Some broader defi nitions of pork include any benefi t tar-
geted to a particular political constituency (typically an impor-
tant business in a member’s district or a generous campaign
contributor), even if the benefi t is part of a stand-alone bill.
Examples of this type of targeted federal largesse include
the bill that provided federal support to the airlines after the
September 11 attacks, which sailed through Congress without
much debate, and the lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq that
were awarded to politically well-connected businesses.
Pork has plenty of critics. Citizens against Government
Waste, one of the most outspoken groups to tackle pork-barrel
spending, compiles each year’s federal pork-barrel projects
into their annual Pig Book to draw attention to pork. Represen-
tative Dave Obey (D-Wis.) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.),
among others, have been trying to get Congress to cut back on
earmarks. The ban on earmarks imposed by House Republi-
cans in 2011 has helped a great deal, but committee and infor-
mal earmarks are still pervasive. The arguments against pork
are especially urgent during a time of massive budget defi cits.
According to this view, the national interest in a balanced bud-
get should take priority over localized projects.
However, some argue that pork is the “glue of legislating,”
because these small side payments secure the passage of
larger bills. If it takes a little pork for the home district or state
in order to get important legislation through Congress, so be it.
The motives of budget reform groups that call for greater fi s-
cal discipline in Congress may also be questioned, since many
of these groups oppose government spending in general—
not just on pork. In some cases, policies they identify as pork
have signifi cant national implications: military readiness, road
improvements to support economic infrastructure, or the devel-
opment of new agricultural and food products. National inter-
ests can be served, in other words, by allowing local interests
to take a dip into the pork barrel. Put another way, “pork is in
the eye of the beholder,” or one person’s pork is another per-
son’s essential spending. Finally, defenders of pork point out
that even according to the critics’ own defi nition, pork spending
constitutes about one-half of 1 percent of the total federal bud-
get. If you were a member of Congress, would you work hard to
deliver pork to your district or work to eliminate as much pork
as you could from the budget?You Decide
Surrounded by members of Congress, President Obama signs the
National Defense Authorization Act for 2010. The law included
1,719 earmarks worth $7.6 billion.THE STRUCTURE OF CONGRESS| 273Critical Thinking Questions
- If you were a member of Congress, would you
work hard to deliver pork to your district or work
to eliminate as much pork as you could from the
budget? - Why is it so diffi cult to ban earmarks even in the
face of massive budget defi cits?