A major issue in the political debates of recent times has been the conflict of pork-barrel policies, or, as they are more commonly known, earmarking. Earmarking refers to the allocation of funds and resources by congress towards grants, programs or projects for districts within states (Earmarks 2011). A district may have money set aside to fund different projects, like a new highway or bridge construction, small business grants, or a local government office. Many congressmen have differing opinions about the importance and benefits of pork spending. Some congressmen say earmarking can be a useful tool to increase funding to small districts. Other, more liberal members of congress disagree and claim that it is corruption. One senator has even gone so far as to say “earmarked funding promotes corruption, waste and big-spending” (Friel).
The numbers don’t lie, despite the many different opinions about earmarking. Some supporters of pork expenditure argue that cutting earmarks will not save money, and that it is non-elected bureaucrats who are really in charge of big spending (Friel 2010). Others may claim that earmarking allows government funds to be distributed to a greater number of local projects across the nation, as opposed to a small group of larger and more centralized ventures. But despite all the positive opinions, there is still an influence from those who are against earmarking. Sen. George LeMieux offered a unique perspective on the issue of earmarking. The spending becomes more reckless and those responsible for it are harder to hold accountable.
In a politically complex matter, negative effects appear to outweigh positive ones. The dramatic increase of pork projects over the past decade, from under two thousand during the 1990s, to nearly fourteen thousand just in 2005 (Cato) shows how congress clearly found something it could use for their benefit and took advantage at a surprising rate. When discussing earmarking, the primary issue that comes up is federal involvement in private and state issues. The majority of earmarks are grants to private sector, and then taxpayers money is used to support that area. The profits are not returned to taxpayers or government when the private group or company pays out. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for things that do not directly impact them.
Our current government should stop earmarking and pork-spending. If spending continues at this rate of exponential growth, the national debt deficit is soon going to become unmanageable. No one would be held responsible and the citizen would be lost in an intricate government power struggle (Rauch 2009). Our elected representatives will not be able to keep up with the demands and desires of the entire population, but rather what is most important for their district. For them, it doesn’t matter if they have to give up some of their political platforms that got them elected. Their political integrity, which is already fragile, will be thrown into disarray.
