29 JOHN. ELLWOOD ERIC PATASHNIK In Praise of Pork Porksbael spending is high on Americans’ ist of gripes against Congress. “Asparagus researc and mink reproduction” typify the waste spending ‘hat seems to enrich congressional districts and states while bankrupiing the tation. Recenily “earmarks” have been ertized asthe newest technique for ating pore into bill. John Eliwood and Eric Ptashne take a diferent view: Por isnot the real cause ofthe nation’s budget crisis, they belive. In Sut, pork projects may be just what members ofthe House and Senate need to be abl osatify constituents in order to summon the courage to vot for veal, significant, painful budget cuts. Is a WHITE House address ... fin] March [1992], President $e [George H.W] Bush challenged Congress to cut $5.7 billion of pork bar- rel projects to help reduce the defici. Among the projects Bush pro- Posed eliminating were such congressional favorites as funding for aspurs- {gus research, mink reproduction, and local parking garages.TThe examples he cited would be finny, said the Presiden, “ifthe effect weren't so seri- Such episodes are a regulat occurrence in Washington. Indeed, since the first Congress convened in 1789 and debated whether to build aight. house to protect the Chesapeake Bay legislators of both parties have at- ‘tempted to deliver federal funds back home for capital improvements and other projects, while presidents have tried to excise pork from the con- sessional diet... Ja recent years, public outrage over government waste has ran Many ero se pork bel nnn only ns aba shape ‘of control Congress but asa leading cause ofthe nation’s worsening bud- “The poche!” sn congresional pening on projec at bing ney ad 19 pac danics crughou Ameria, henby icing pane ie ei aceon ae “Un Prase of Pork ! 191 “get-defcit To cite one prominent example, Washington Post editor Brian Kelly claims in his recent book, Adventures in Porkland: Why Washington Cant Stop Spending Your Money, that the 1992 federal budget alone con “tains $97 billion of pork project so entirely without merit that they could ‘be"Topped out” without affecting the “welfare of the nation” Kelly's claims are surely overblown. For example, he includes the low- “er prices that consumers would pay if certain price supports were with- drawn, even though these savings (while certainly desirable) would for the ‘most part not show up in the government’ ledgers.Yer reductions in pork © barrel spending have alo been advocated by those who acknowledge that pork; properly measured, comprises only a tiny fraction of total federal “oatlays. For example, Kansas Democrat Jim Slatery, who led the bate in the Houte in 1991 against using $500,000 in federal fands to turn Lew- rence Welk’s birthplace into a shrine, told Common Cause Magazine, “its important ffom the standpoint of restoring public confidence in Congress to show we are prepared to stop wasteful spending,” even ifthe cuts are ‘only symbolic. Ina similar vein, a recent Newsweek cover story, while con » ceding that “cutting out the most extreme forms of pork wouldn' elimi- sate the federal deficit,” emphasizes that doing so “would demonstrate that Washington has the political will to reform its profigate ways.” ‘The premise of these statements is that the first ching anyone— ‘whether an individual consumer or the United States government—try- ing to save money should cut out is the fuff.As Time magazine thetori- cally acks “when Congres is strugeling without much suecess to reduce the federal budget deficit, the question naturally arises: is pork relly nec sary?” ‘Our answer i yes. We believe in pork not because every new dam or “overpass deserves to be funded, nor because we consider pork an appro- priate instrument of fiscal policy (there are more efficient ways of stim- ting a $5 wrillion economy). Rather, we think that pork, dled out strategically, can help to sweeten an otherwise unpalatable piece oflegisla- tion. ‘No bill sts so biter to the average member of Congress 2s one that rises taxes or cuts popular programs. Any credible deficit-reduction pack- age will almost certainly have to do both. In exchange for an increase in pork barrel spending, however, members of Congress just might be will- | ingto bite the bullet and make the politically difficult decisions that will bbe required if the federal deficit is ever to be brought under conto. In perfect world it would not be necessary to bribe elected officals to perform their jobs well. Bat, as James Madison pointed out two cenbu- als5 Prise of Pork 193 in men are not an Jo not live in a ‘Amore roach is suggested by polidcal scientist David tes ago in Feder 5t,men are not angels and we do not ive in apt Seba Greaiin cad Guceas Acai thew congressional life consis largely of relentless search” for ways pursuit of self-interest ro public ends claiming credit for making good things happen back home and thereby Unfortunately, in the debate over how to reduce the deficit, Madison advice has all oo often gone ignored. Indeed, if there is anything the ma: Jor budget-reform proposals of the last decade (Gramm-Rudman, th balanced-budget amendment, an entitlement cap") have in common, i that in seeking to impose artificial imits on govcrnment spending wil. ‘out offring anything in rerurn, they work against the electoral invert of congressmen instead of with them—which is why these reforms have: been so vigorously resisted, t No reasonable observer would argue that pork barrel spending kt | always been employed as a force for good or that there are no pork pag ccs what would have been better lft unbuilt. But singling oue pork the culprit for our fical rewhles directs attention amray Even the hen sources of budgetary growth and contributes to the illusion that the bud. get can be balanced simply by eliminating waste and abuse. While propor als to achieve a pork-free budget 2re not without superficial appeal, chy risk depriving leaders wying to enact real deficit-reduction measures of one of the most effective coalition-building tools at their disposal. 3 In order to appreciate why congressmen ae so enamored of pork tis belpfal to understand exactly what pork is, But defining pork is not 3 ‘easy as it sounds. According to Congressional Quarterly, potk is usually com: 4 sidered to be“ wasteful” spending that flows to a particular state or nie in order to please voters back home. Like beauty, however, waste is in the: eye of the beholder. As University of Michigan budget expert Edward M.- Gramlich puts it, “one guy's pork is another guy's red meat” To a district plagued by double-digit unemployment, a new highway projects a sound. investment, regardless of local transportation needs. Some scholars simply define pork as any program that is economi cally inefficient—that is, any program whose total costs exceed its tot Denefs. But this definon tae withthe same brush boc real pork and programs that, while ineficient, can be justified on grounds of issiba- ‘ional equity or in which geographic legislative influence is small or non- cnistent : pieces of governmental accomplishment for which he can betievably erate a sense of responsiblity.” For most congressmen, the easiest way ‘of doing this i to supply goods to their home districts. ‘From this perspective, the ideal pork barrel project has three key prop- + all enough to allow a single congressman to be recognized as the bene B — facor Second, benefits are given out in such a ishion as to lead consti~ sto believe that dhe congressman had a hand in the allocation. Third, {coos reulting from the project are widely diffused or otherwise obscured SF Somn mepayer notice " Rolideal pork, thea, offers a congressman's constiments an array of ‘benefits at Ltle apparent cost. Because pork projects are easily distin- frshed by voters fom the ordinary outputs of government, they provide incumbent with the opportunity to portray himselfasa“prime mover” ho doers to be reeled, When 2 congrsman ates «ribbon - cutting ceremony fora sbiny new building in his dswir, every voter can _sehat he is accomplishing something in Washington... " “Tes outrageous that you've got to have such political payoff to get (Congres to do the nation’s busines” says James Miller, OMB director ‘under Ronald Reagan. Miller’ ovtrage is understandable but ultimately “emproductive. Human nature and the electoral imperative being what are, the pork barrel i hereto stay. eee eel ‘bent upon leaders to ensure that taxpayers get something for their money. | -Ourmos effecrive presidents have been those who have linked the distri- ‘auton of pork vo the achievement of critical national objectives. When Fanklin Roosevelt discovered he could not develop an atomic bomb "without the support of Tennessee Senator Kenneth McKellar, chairman of E the Appropriations Committee, he readily agreed to locate the bomb fi © ly in Oak Ridge. By contrast, our least effective presidents— Jimmy “Carter comes to mind—have either given away pum projects for nothing or waged hopeles bates against pork, squandering scarce political capital “Many anemps have bien made in past year to lower the deficit fn 1985, the Gratam: ‘Rndman-Hollings hw set dor lint gous fr deft reduction o be followed by aa rate pecentage cuss howeves, many programs wee exmpred A 1995 balanced bag amendment paied the House, but fed ro get wo-chinds ofthe Senate approval Baa: ‘ment caps would seck to mit the toal aroun: the federal goverment cold psy oot Programs such as Medicare, Media, Soil Security and food sanps-—Es, “The real value of pork project ultimately les in their ability to indace rational legislators into taking electorally risky actions for the sake of the194 JOHN ELEWOOD/ERIC Pa’ Public good. Over the last wen years, asthe discretionary part of the Calegl shrunk, congressmen have had fewer and fewer opportunities i chim credit for direc aiding thet consitents he Bort RR. Kent Weaver hat argued in an ect of sencisy snd eo SENATOR JOHN McCAIN chokes, many legislators gave up on eying to accomplish anything fie focusing their eneigies instead on bame avoidance Tae rel fee oe ee eee en the creation of a political climate in which elected officals now on 7 an , 3, 4,5, 6, 2008, Senator fn believe the only way they can bring the nation back fica heath 3 egal chs jb neoal che oe ’ injure their own electoral chances. This cannot be good for the fame the republic. Politic got us nto che deficit mess, however, and only politics can pe “2 rack Obama himelfacknowiedged that the bill was loeded with pork, mach oft decided by Congress before the 2008 election. President Obama stated 3s out. According to both government and private estimates, anal des that be would reve such por projec in future budget bile Sil, Senator cits will soar after the mid-1990s, and could exceed $600 billion in 2% ‘McCain could not resist pointing out such items like Mormon cricket contro! if the economy performs poodly. Virtually every prominent sa, Utah ($1 million), genetic improvements to switchgrass ($1.4 million), economist ares that reducing the deficit sgniscantly wil reyeie Con Sand pie ofr research in lows ($1.7 milion). Sprinkled among the pork. SIS 12 mt at Bee sensu tying wo vad fr more hag agg RNS tes ot McC dla fom ving wo pes decade—tein in spenciing far Social Security, Mediae, and other Sprig deen neo ee Jpsmiddle-casentidement programs. Tax increases may alo be necesny ee He om one of is young ales on how to use Tite. From the vantage point ofthe average legisator, the risk of elecrond naz — "bution seems enormous If reductions in popular programs and increases in taxes are requied- Ee ‘© put our national economic house back in orc, the seatgie eae, February 25-February 27, 2009 Pork to obtsin the support of key legiatos for dese measures wil by HE, #6. $1 milion for mocmon ctcket control in Utab-is thatthe spe- crucial. ... cies of cricket ora game played by the brits? 8:30AM Feb 27th from [Thhe president should ignore the advice of fiscal puritans whio, web ‘would completely exorcise pork from the body politic. Favoring legit 2. #7. $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center—enough said tors with small gifs for their districts in otdee to achieve great thing or 8:21 AM Feb 27th from web ‘i the nation is an act not of sin but of statesmanship.To be sure, determin. 4 #8. $200,000 “tattoo removal violence outreach program to help ‘ing how much pork is needed and to which members it should be dis: =2!° gang members or others shed visible signs of their past” REALLY? ‘mibuted is difficult. Rather than asking elected officials to become selfs.” 7:50AM Feb 27th from web ‘anges, however, we would ask of them only that they be smart poli 4. going to the floor 6:40AM Feb 27th fom web ‘We suspect Madison would agree that the latter request has 2 far bores = <5, #9.3475,000 to build a parking garage in Provo City, Uwh 6:33 chance of being favorably received, 4 AM Feb 27th fom web #10. $1.7M “for 2 honey bee factory” in Weslaco, TX 6:06 AM Feb 27th, fom web = top 10 projects om the way 5:34AM Feb 27th from web ~ 8.Tmr I am gonna tweet the TOP TEN PORKIEST PROJECTS in the Omnibus Spending bill the Congress is about to pass 10:08, AM Fe 26th from web “9. Mary Hood actually did the interview for CBS on my new found love oftwittering. 8:43AM Feb 26h fom cet