We first need to understand what pork-barrel spending is. We are talking about expenditures for a specific project that get around the normal budget review process. Members of Congress insert these into bills to win favor with voters and/or special interests. We have also heard the term earmarks, and they are expenditures for specific projects. We are only talking about earmarks that are inappropriately inserted, otherwise known as pork. We are going to get into why pork is bad on multiple levels.

Some argue that pork is a net gain for the country. They are forgetting that the federal government cannot give a single dollar to one area without first taking it away from another. For example, if I take a dollar from Area 1 and invest it in Area 2, yes, the people in Area 2 now have one more dollar invested in their quality of life and it will likely help. However, the people in Area 1 now have one less dollar invested in their quality of life. Mathematically speaking, that amounts to zero. Actually, it amounts to less than zero for three reasons. One, some bureaucrats in D.C. are getting paid to process that dollar’s trip though D.C. and two, spending decisions that would be made on the local level where the costs and benefits are both concentrated are now being made on the federal level where costs are dispersed. Whenever the costs are dispersed while the benefits are concentrated, we’re going to get inefficient expenditures. For example, let’s say I was going to take a trip from A to B. I’m deciding how to fly, whether it be first class or coach. I’m paying for it, I look at the price tags for each, and decide to fly coach. I figure the flight is less than one day of my life, no need to invest money in making the trip luxurious. But then I hear that everyone in the country will pay equally for my flight. In other words, the benefits of it are concentrated to me, but the costs are dispersed among the entire country. Now first class sounds appealing to me and I will jump at it. What previously did not make sense for me to buy now does because I’m footing much less of the bill. Pork results in this kind of spending behavior on a government level. The third reason pork barrel spending amounts to less than zero is because it involves spending public money on political calculations. Pork disproportionately goes to the areas of Congressmembers who have been in office a long time, that are on certain committees, in a certain party (typically 60-40 majority-minority), and that have a tough reelection fight coming up. Coincidence? I think not. In short, pork amounts to less than zero because of the bureaucrats getting paid in D.C., its dispersing of the costs for concentrated benefits, and the political calculations.

Furthermore, we elect our members of Congress to do many things, collecting pork is not one of them. We hear it all the time though, that they are called representatives for a reason; they are there on behalf of us so it follows that they try to bring home as much money as possible. Well, not exactly. We elect them to represent our views on national matters within their constitutional role. The constitution allows Congress to tax and spend to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. The courts have ruled that the words “general welfare” are limited to matters of national welfare and not the welfare of any individual area or party. Pork barrel spending, inherently, is not for the national welfare. Pork barrel spending escapes the process of determining what is a national priority and is inserted into a bill regardless of its merit. We are spending transportation dollars on pork when we still have structurally deficient bridges to repair. We are spending health and human services dollars on pork when we still have uninsured children. We are spending homeland security dollars on pork when high-risk places such as nuclear plants remain unguarded. We are spending Defense dollars on pork when we aren’t even able to guarantee sufficient body armor for our troops. We are spending education dollars on pork when we still have underperforming schools. I could go on and on and on. Some will say that pork helps representatives get funding for such projects, and some pork may go to that, but that still misses the bigger picture. We should spend money on these things, but they should be competitively bid based on merit. The fact that members of Congress are bypassing competitive bidding to insert their pork demonstrates that they don’t think their project has much merit.

To be clear, Congressmembers have every right to argue for why a project in their area is a national priority, they have every right to put it on the table, and at the end of the day, Congress as a whole is supposed to spend money for the national welfare. To use the structurally deficient bridges example, if Congress was to determine that repairing structurally deficient bridges is a national priority, which it should be, it could allocate the money based on how structurally deficient the bridge is, and how many people drive on it regularly. Congressmembers could argue for funding repair of their bridge, propose it, but Congress as a whole is supposed to decide which bridges get funding based on the national welfare. When Congress stops spending money based on the national welfare, it has overstepped its constitutional role. Some say pork is only 1% of the Federal budget, or about $18 billion, and that is true, but that’s $18 billion we could be spending to repair structurally deficient bridges, get proper body armor for our troops, insure more children, help our underperforming schools, and properly secure more vulnerable terrorist targets.

A final argument we’ve heard is that pork helps preserve separation of powers. Without pork, spending for projects would be subject to a bureaucrat’s discretion. First, I ask how well separation of powers survived before the 1980s, when pork became prevalent. Second, I am not saying Congress should not appropriate money for specific projects. I am saying that Congress should only appropriate money for projects that have gone through public hearings, review, scrutiny, and that win out on a cost-benefit analysis. Taxpayers deserve no less.