Dean Jellison - November 11, 2005
Political Pork
Most people recognize the term ‘pork’ when used in its political sense as an appropriation that probably shouldn’t have been made.
A definition of the word ‘pork’ when used in politics would be: a derogatory term applied to government spending that will benefit only the constituents of a particular politician while the cost is spread among all taxpayers. The politician, of course, hopes that the beneficiaries will show their appreciation by voting for him next time around. The term originated in colonial days when salt pork for slaves was distributed from wooden barrels.
The Media tend to imply that all such appropriations are wasteful and without any merit. It is interesting to read about the 243 Million Dollar ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ and you have to dig a bit to find out that the bridge would connect a mainland Alaska town to its airport on a nearby island. An existing ferry service is vulnerable to weather delays and would be replaced. Whether the taxpayers of the nation ought to pay for such a bridge is debatable but the people in that town feel a real need for a bridge rather than a ferry ride.
I was listening to C-Span some time ago and Sen. McCain was talking about pork. He listed several outrageous examples including a several million dollar project to inventory the Grizzly Bears in Montana’s Glacier National Park by using DNA. I know quite a few people who would argue that, since a couple of million US taxpayers visit that park each year, and a few are chewed up by the bears, there is merit in learning all we can about them.
It seems pretty obvious that all of the pork appropriations should be considered out in the open as part of an appropriations bill rather than hidden away as amendments to some huge policy bill. The recently adopted Energy Bill was loaded with such amendments.
The real question that all this raises is whether we should criticize our folks in Washington for participating in this process. If each state was allocated a specific amount based on population or based on the number of Senators and Congressmen that represent it, that would appear to be fair.
An organization called Citizens Against Government Waste has calculated that, in 2003, Montana received $96 for every person through the pork process. Alaska got $611 per person which was the highest and California got $17 per person which was the lowest. The National Average was $34 per person. Montana was 10th highest in that list.
You can think of several reasons that would justify this disparity but the facts are that the amount a state receives is in direct relation to the clout and position of its Congressional delegation. Senator Baucus has been there a long time and has much clout. Senator Burns has developed even greater clout during his shorter time in the Senate.
Suppose you were one of our Senators. You regard the system as wasteful and unfair. You work hard to get it changed but quickly realize that you will not succeed. Should you then refuse to participate or should you go after as much pork as you can get. As a Montana taxpayer, I want you to identify some good Montana projects and use all of your skill and tools to get as much as you can.
Back in the days of the Cold War with the Soviet Union there were people who worked hard to get us to do ‘a unilateral disarmament’ believing the Soviets would then join us. We now know that would have been very foolish. For you to stay above the pork fest would be equally foolish. It would be grossly unfair to your constituents. If you diverted a little energy to working for legislation that would outlaw pork for everyone but otherwise did your best to get what you could for us, you would deserve the gratitude of every voter.
Our guys in Washington do pretty well by us in the present system. I don’t see any indication that they are working toward an elimination of Pork, but maybe that is understandable. After all, you will pay much more attention to a grant of a Million dollars for a project in your town than you will to a committee vote that will reduce the aid we provide to other countries by many million dollars.
This is Dean Jellison. Thanks for listening.
|
|
