Pork-Barrel Politics

Pork is yummy (when cooked) in sandwiches, but we tend to not like it as much when it shows up in our politics.

Or do we? Pork-barrel politics tends to get a bad rap, but what is it really? Well, it’s basically a process legislators use to get money for their own constituency. For example, let’s say a group of U.S. Congress members are trying to get a bill passed that would secure more federal highway dollars for their states. They really need the support of the Congressman from Florida, and he says he’ll give it, as long as they attach a rider to their bill that would send money to his state so he can rebuild a crumbling bridge. This rider is what’s known as pork, and “pork-barrel politics” is the addition of pork to pending legislation in order to secure support for it.

So why don’t we like pork-barrel politics? After all, those states are getting money to repair their decrepit roads, and Florida gets to build a new, safer bridge. Aren’t those good things? Of course they are, but the problem people have with pork-barrel politics is that it’s kind of…what’s the word…opaque. Pork—also called “earmarks”—is often hidden deep within the language of the legislation, and it often doesn’t have much to do with the subject of the legislation anyway. Like adding a rider about a bridge in Florida in the middle of a bill about funding highway repairs in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Nevada. It’s also sort of…what’s the other word?…expensive. Here we are, thinking the folks in Congress are passing a billion dollar highway repair bill, when in reality, $360 million of it is already earmarked for special pork projects in other towns, districts, or states.

Hashtag truth: a lot of the projects and initiatives that receive government funding do so as a result of pork-barrel politics. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? We’ll let others decide. We’ve got a delicious pulled pork sandwich to get back to.