It's probably best to not watch sausage or legislation being made

Posted Oct 4th 2008 5:10PM by Joseph Lazzaro
Filed under: Politics, Financial Crisis

Much has been written about the add-ons or 'pork' in the rescue package passed by the U.S. Congress and signed President Bush.

The add-ons, which increased the bill's projected cost by $130-$165 billion, depending on the analysis, have been viewed as another example of "special interest lobbying," "sneaky ways to get pet projects passed," "ripping off the taxpayer" and/or as simply un-American.

Well, the truth is, add-ons in the United States have taken place in every Congress since the nation was founded. Further, no one really knows who made the first legislative "deal," but to say that senators in ancient Rome or officials in Greece, did not trade votes for projects or patronage would be a stretch.

"Democracy is the worst system ...

Of course, it's much more ethical -- some would call it virtuous -- to propose a bill, then get a large majority to render a decision on the program/policy/law solely on its merits, driven by whether the bill is in the nation's interest.

And likewise, add-ons/pork can increase federal spending by substantial amounts, which makes it harder for the federal government -- or any government, for that matter -- to live within its means.

... except when compared to all the rest." -- Churchill

Nevertheless, the reality is that the legislation you propose may be opposed by many, perhaps even by members of your own party. Selected others may not see it as being in the nation's interest. In fact, even though it may be a good idea, powerful interests may be organized against it. As a result, your meritorious bill may have a few more votes against it than for it. Some of these opponents are adamant: they're not voting for your bill.

Others, however, are of a mind to vote against it, but they might support it, if you can get that military research facility in my congressional district that I've been trying to get funded for ten years funded ... or if you can get that alternative minimum tax exemption extended that my constituents want, or that new hospital wing that my county desperately needs funded, or that library built at the community college, or that highway bypass finally built in Missouri. Do you know how long we in Missouri have been waiting for our highway bypass to be funded?

So in the end, what do you do, bill sponsor?

You find a way to get 13 more votes for your bill.

Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. presidency and the U.S. economy.

Tags: bailout bill, comity, Democrats, earmarks, featured, gdp, legislative process, lobbying, logrolling, patronage, pork, Republicans, rescue bill, U.S. Congress, U.S. economy, U.S. Treasury

Print this

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

10-05-2008 @ 12:45AM

RickRussellTX said...

But let's remember what we mean by "pork". It's the legislation of direct funding for a project that has an existing funding infrastructure -- like the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Park Service, Department of Transit, etc.

These organizations have existing review mechanisms to handle the vetting of potential projects, and whatever you may think of their efficiency, I'd much rather have projects evaluated against similar proposals than the cherry-picking of oddball projects that occurs when legislators go to the bargaining table.

That sort of quid-pro-quo might seem fine until you realize that for every hojillion-dollar boondoggle that gets tacked on to an important bill, there are a bunch of deserving projects out there that never get funded. For example, the congressional obsession with funding particular national park projects -- such as the $1,000,000 Glacier National Park outhouse -- means that 2/3 of the National Park Service budget is earmarked to specific capital projects, leaving precious little money to keep parks maintained and administrated.

Every special wing of a hospital is two other wings that don't get constructed in areas where they are sorely needed. Every dollar devoted to build a special-purpose scientific laboratory is a dollar removed from basic university research. Funding for a particular high bypass could take away funding where it is critically needed, with tragedy as the result.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/2007/bridge_collapse/

10-05-2008 @ 10:37AM

william lindblad said...

The fall out from 2008 will emerge in 2010 when extensive reductions will be required to fund Medicare.

10-05-2008 @ 4:49PM

Dave said...

Let's make this clear, without this so called pork the bill would not have passed. In fact the bill did not pass without it.

All this talk about the arrows is just stupid, how much of a difference does that addition actually make? $10,000? I'm ok with that if it got one additional vote. I am fine with the American government spending my tax dollars on anything that directly benefits Americans and is spent in this country. Better to spend our money here than in Iraq.