Typically, “pork” is the national funding of government programs whose economic benefits or services are concentrated in a particular area, but whose costs are shared among all taxpayers. Public works projects, some national defence expenditures, and agricultural subsidies are the most frequently cited examples. The barrel of pork policy was probably invented by the first legislator who ever lived, but it survives today, often under slightly less pejorative terminology. In both cases, it is a sum of money that is inserted as an item in the federal budget and that funds a specific project. The barrel of pork originally comes from the storage of meat. [8] In the 1870s, references to “pork” were common in Congress, and the term was popularized in 1919 by an article by Chester Collins Maxey in the National Municipal Review, which reported on certain pieces of legislation known to members of Congress as “Pork Barrels Bills.” He claimed that the phrase stemmed from a pre-Civil War practice of giving slaves a barrel of salted pork as a reward and forcing them to compete with each other for their share of alms. [9] In general, a barrel of pork was a common meal in 19th century households and could be used as a measure of family financial well-being. For example, James Fenimore Cooper wrote in his 1845 novel The Chainbearer: “I think a family is desperate when the mother can see the bottom of the pork barrel.” [10] However, even these corrections will not be enough to make the regulatory pig politically accountable. A variety of agency analyses, peer committees and reporting obligations are no substitute for democratic decisions. Ultimately, accountability should stop at Congress itself, where members must transparently vote for or against all of the administration`s extrabudgetary activism, just as votes on other important taxes and spending are recorded.
But if these decisions are not well informed, legislators will render them meaningless, if they make them. One way to minimize tax evasion could be to increase the ability of the Congressional Budget Office to delineate, for the legislature, the corporation`s profits and losses from each major regulatory initiative, just as CBO provides this annual service with each major budget item. A joint report by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, published last July, suggested experimenting in this direction (see Christopher Foreman`s article on Congress and regulatory reform in this issue of the journal). Pig policy is the legislator`s practice of including the financing of a local project in a budget. The bill must have nothing to do with the bill and can only benefit the legislature`s home district. Before a bill is put to a vote, pork has often significantly inflated its cost by adding company projects from various legislators. The pork barrel, or simply pork, is a metaphor for appropriating government spending on localized projects obtained exclusively or primarily to bring money into a representative`s district. Roll the pork like jelly roll over the filling until the seam is turned down and the fat is raised. Citizens Against Government Waste[4] describes seven criteria by which spending in the United States can be classified as “pork”: Veselka layered its latch with pork goulash and toloch added beef short-ribbed chorizo. The second round was unloaded with no better result, except that a shrapnel from his horn was torn off. While the regulatory pork barrel often serves well-organized districts, its reach tends to be broader than the traditional treats (a new post office here, a new road, or a sewer system there) that members of Congress offered their districts.
In contemporary American politics, this difference is an added advantage for members of Congress, who must increasingly ingratiate themselves with national lobbies and interest groups that provide valuable political support. The pattern of influence and engagement is reflected in the financing of congressional election campaigns. For example, while candidates for House elections used to depend almost entirely on local voters and state parties, winners now receive nearly 40 percent of their contributions from political action committees, that is, the fundraising arm of national interest groups. Prosaic projects that only reach the locals do not satisfy many of these hungry organizations; Instead, they expect a diet rich in ubiquitous social advice: more safety features in all motor vehicles, pure water in every river, equal sports programs in virtually every university, smoking bans from the sea to the bright sea, and so on. Funds allocated by a legislature to projects that are not essential, but sought after because they inject money and resources into the legislators` local districts. Local projects such as dams, military bases, highways, housing subsidies and vocational training are often funded by pig legislation that can be achieved through deforestation. Successful lawmakers in the pork sector are likely to be re-elected by their constituents. A hundred at the right gun – there is nothing left for the second barrel! A Lapland who can`t get tobacco sucks chips from a barrel or pieces of whatever in it.
Spending on pork barrels means spending on public works projects of dubious value in exchange for political support, often at the expense of the interests of the general public. Money and politics often go hand in hand, as the cost of an effective political campaign is quite high. The new system is darker. Its content extends far beyond earmarked funds or tax breaks to a pile of selective legal restrictions that appear budget-neutral and “tax-free,” and that are in part, so to speak, in the custody of unaccountable private attorneys general.