What is meant by "pork barrel" legislation? Laurel, MD - 5/3/00

"Pork barrel" came into use as a political term in the post-Civil War era. It recalls the practice of plantation owners who would often hand out rations of salt pork to their slaves, distributing them from wooden barrels. When used in reference to a particular bill, it implies the legislation is loaded with goodies for Members of Congress to distribute to their constituents back home as an act of largesse, courtesy of the federal taxpayer.

There is often disagreement about just what defines a pork barrel project. What one Member perceives as an important improvement for his district or state, another might view as an unfair distribution of federal funds. Those that use the term in a pejorative sense are critical of the fact that a specific project benefits only one district or region, and that similar benefits do not flow to other areas in the nation with similar needs.

It is also true that not all Members are equally able to "bring home the bacon." Pork barrel benefits are not distributed based on a merit-based or national formula. Pork barrel funding is obtained due to adroit political negotiations and advantageous committee assignments awarded Members who accrue both seniority and skill. Pork barrel projects generate jobs, thereby helping the local economy, and bring political credit to the Member who worked on getting the project enacted. These are powerful incentives for Members, making elimination of all pork barrel spending highly unlikely.

Federal dollars that have been most often accused of coming out of a pork barrel have funded a variety of projects, but mostly those involving infrastructure. Most popular have been projects dealing with rivers and harbors and the numerous flood control, dam, levee, canal, and waterway renovations that go with them. Other projects often termed "pork barrel" have included bridges, highways, sewage treatment centers, and other assorted public works projects, defense contracts, university research studies, water reclamation, environmental clean-up projects, solar research, and park maintenance and expansion, including the creation of bicycle paths.

Finally, criticism for pork barrel projects is often warranted because they fund programs that fail to meet national criteria, or are awarded without need first being demonstrated on a competitive basis. However, the criticism is not always fair.

Just because a federally funded project only benefits one district or one state does not automatically mean that the project has no merit. Districts that regularly suffer the consequences of severe flooding, mudslides, or other destructive acts of nature certainly will not view federal help in building protective barriers to such natural disasters as "pork barrel" spending.

Also, pork barrel spending gets a lot of attention that sometimes overstates its fiscal impact. In 1993, the President's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that pork barrel programs were no more than 1% of the entire federal budget. Federally funded projects which benefit only one district or state should be viewed on a case-by-case basis. Some may well be goodies unfairly obtained through political clout. But others may withstand objective analysis, and turn out to be credible choices for federal dollars based on urgency, merit, or need.