Pork Barrel And Earmarks Politics

[steve_bank]

Something that used to get attention but has disappeared from reporting.


I'd call Biden's attempt to get rid of student debt by executive order pork barrel politics.

Pork barrel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pork barrel, or simply pork, is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.

The usage originated in American English,[1] and it indicates a negotiated way of political particularism.

Scholars use it as a technical term regarding legislative control of local appropriations.[2][3] In election campaigns, the term is used in derogatory fashion to attack opponents.

Typically, "pork" involves national funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples.

Citizens Against Government Waste[4] outlines seven criteria by which spending in the United States can be classified as "pork":

1. Requested by only one chamber of Congress
2. Not specifically authorized
3. Not competitively awarded
4. Not requested by the President
5. Greatly exceeds the President's budget request or the previous year's funding
6. Not the subject of Congressional hearings
7. Serves only a local or special interest.

The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending which is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.

And earmarks.

Earmark (politics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An earmark is a provision inserted into a discretionary spending appropriations bill that directs funds to a specific recipient while circumventing the merit-based or competitive funds allocation process. Earmarks feature in United States Congress spending policy, and they are present in public finance of many other countries as a form of political particularism.

Alaska's 'bridge to nowhere' plan finally scrapped

A proposed Alaska bridge that became a symbol of wasteful federal spending on politicians' pet projects has officially been scrapped a decade after the idea was first floated, state officials said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

JUNEAU, Alaska (Reuters) - A proposed Alaska bridge that became a symbol of wasteful federal spending on politicians’ pet projects has officially been scrapped a decade after the idea was first floated, state officials said on Friday.

Dubbed the “bridge to nowhere,” it would have connected the small city of Ketchikan to its airport on nearby Gravina island, and it secured a $223 million earmark in 2005.

 

[laughing dog]

Pork barrel usually refers to spending on infrastructure, so I’d say your usage is idiosyncratic.

 

[steve_bank]

Biden expanded the term. 'Human Infrastructure' equating his spending bill social spending to equate the necessity and importance to physical infrastructure.

I agree in that social programs can be viewed as infrastructure today as physical projects such as railroads. And social programs have become pork barrel spending as much as physical infrastructure of the past.

His arbitrary attempt to forgive student debt is modern pork.

 

[laughing dog]

Biden expanded the term. 'Human Infrastructure' equating his spending bill social spending to equate the necessity and importance to physical infrastructure.

A "whataboutism" is not an argument nor a justification.

I agree in that social programs can be viewed as infrastructure today as physical projects such as railroads. And social programs have become pork barrel spending as much as physical infrastructure of the past.

His arbitrary attempt to forgive student debt is modern pork.

Do you realize that pork is one of the main sources of protein to much of the world's population?

 

[Patooka]

I didn't realise national tertiary education was a localised project. That phrase pork barrel? You're using it wrong. The definition you've supplied proves you're using it wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Biden expanded the term. 'Human Infrastructure' equating his spending bill social spending to equate the necessity and importance to physical infrastructure.

A "whataboutism" is not an argument nor a justification.

I agree in that social programs can be viewed as infrastructure today as physical projects such as railroads. And social programs have become pork barrel spending as much as physical infrastructure of the past.

His arbitrary attempt to forgive student debt is modern pork.

Do you realize that pork is one of the main sources of protein to much of the world's population?

Do you not understand how the word "pork" is being used here???? Hint: It's not something you can eat.

 

[laughing dog]

Biden expanded the term. 'Human Infrastructure' equating his spending bill social spending to equate the necessity and importance to physical infrastructure.

A "whataboutism" is not an argument nor a justification.

I agree in that social programs can be viewed as infrastructure today as physical projects such as railroads. And social programs have become pork barrel spending as much as physical infrastructure of the past.

His arbitrary attempt to forgive student debt is modern pork.

Do you realize that pork is one of the main sources of protein to much of the world's population?

Do you not understand how the word "pork" is being used here???? Hint: It's not something you can eat.

It was an analogy that you clearly missed: politicians keeping campaign promises is a main source of maintaining office.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Biden expanded the term. 'Human Infrastructure' equating his spending bill social spending to equate the necessity and importance to physical infrastructure.

A "whataboutism" is not an argument nor a justification.

I agree in that social programs can be viewed as infrastructure today as physical projects such as railroads. And social programs have become pork barrel spending as much as physical infrastructure of the past.

His arbitrary attempt to forgive student debt is modern pork.

Do you realize that pork is one of the main sources of protein to much of the world's population?

Do you not understand how the word "pork" is being used here???? Hint: It's not something you can eat.

It was an analogy that you clearly missed: politicians keeping campaign promises is a main source of maintaining office.

First, I wasn't addressing whether it was right or not, but rather your response.

Second, it being a campaign promise is not a rebuttal to it's being pork. Politicians often brag about the pork they brought home in their campaigns.

 

[Derec]

I didn't realise national tertiary education was a localised project. That phrase pork barrel? You're using it wrong. The definition you've supplied proves you're using it wrong.

I think it works by analogy. It is a giveaway to a specific group of people - most US citizens do not benefit from it. The only difference is that the group is not geographically defined.

 

[Patooka]

I didn't realise national tertiary education was a localised project. That phrase pork barrel? You're using it wrong. The definition you've supplied proves you're using it wrong.

I think it works by analogy. It is a giveaway to a specific group of people - most US citizens do not benefit from it. The only difference is that the group is not geographically defined.

A country spending on education is an investment, not fucking pork barrelling.

 

[laughing dog]

t

Biden expanded the term. 'Human Infrastructure' equating his spending bill social spending to equate the necessity and importance to physical infrastructure.

A "whataboutism" is not an argument nor a justification.

I agree in that social programs can be viewed as infrastructure today as physical projects such as railroads. And social programs have become pork barrel spending as much as physical infrastructure of the past.

His arbitrary attempt to forgive student debt is modern pork.

Do you realize that pork is one of the main sources of protein to much of the world's population?

Do you not understand how the word "pork" is being used here???? Hint: It's not something you can eat.

It was an analogy that you clearly missed: politicians keeping campaign promises is a main source of maintaining office.

First, I wasn't addressing whether it was right or not, but rather your response.

Is there a point?

Second, it being a campaign promise is not a rebuttal to it's being pork. Politicians often brag about the pork they brought home in their campaigns.

That does not address anything in my response. Campaign promises do not equal pork. Moreover, the notion that a policy or a campaign promise is pork unless it benefits a sufficiently large and diverse population makes the notion of "pork barrel" absolutely pointless.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Ignore the gigantic pork elephant of military spending in the room to go after college students and graduates?

Must be another steve post.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think it works by analogy. It is a giveaway to a specific group of people - most US citizens do not benefit from it. The only difference is that the group is not geographically defined.

A country spending on education is an investment...

Spending on current education is an investment. Spending on future education is an investment. Spending on past education is not an investment. You might as well call giving a kickback to the guy who sold you some stock last year an investment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't realise national tertiary education was a localised project. That phrase pork barrel? You're using it wrong. The definition you've supplied proves you're using it wrong.

I think it works by analogy. It is a giveaway to a specific group of people - most US citizens do not benefit from it. The only difference is that the group is not geographically defined.

A country spending on education is an investment, not fucking pork barrelling.

This isn't going to produce any education because it's talking about the past. Doing something to reduce the cost of college would be education spending.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, I wasn't addressing whether it was right or not, but rather your response.
Is there a point?

Second, it being a campaign promise is not a rebuttal to it's being pork. Politicians often brag about the pork they brought home in their campaigns.

That does not address anything in my response. Campaign promises do not equal pork. Moreover, the notion that a policy or a campaign promise is pork unless it benefits a sufficiently large and diverse population makes the notion of "pork barrel" absolutely pointless.

You're still not rebutting anything.

It being a campaign promise has nothing to do with whether it is pork.

 

[Politesse]

I didn't realise national tertiary education was a localised project. That phrase pork barrel? You're using it wrong. The definition you've supplied proves you're using it wrong.

I think it works by analogy. It is a giveaway to a specific group of people - most US citizens do not benefit from it. The only difference is that the group is not geographically defined.

A country spending on education is an investment, not fucking pork barrelling.

This isn't going to produce any education because it's talking about the past. Doing something to reduce the cost of college would be education spending.

Which, of course, the executive order also did...

 

[laughing dog]

First, I wasn't addressing whether it was right or not, but rather your response.
Is there a point?

Second, it being a campaign promise is not a rebuttal to it's being pork. Politicians often brag about the pork they brought home in their campaigns.

That does not address anything in my response. Campaign promises do not equal pork. Moreover, the notion that a policy or a campaign promise is pork unless it benefits a sufficiently large and diverse population makes the notion of "pork barrel" absolutely pointless.

You're still not rebutting anything.

It being a campaign promise has nothing to do with whether it is pork.

I am not interested in dealing with your straw men or lack of reasoning. Making a campaign promise, in and of itself, does not make the promise an example of pork barrel politics. Moreover, one person considers "pork", another person may not.

The OP definition of "pork barrel" describes almost any gov't policy, making the definition effectively pointless. Finally, as a general observation, a policy that provide benefits to a small group of people at the cost to many more people can still provide an overall net positive benefit to the country. It is an empirical question whether the debt forgiveness program reaches an overall net benefit or not. Calling it "pork barrel" is a kneejerk attempt to disparage the policy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, I wasn't addressing whether it was right or not, but rather your response.
Is there a point?

Second, it being a campaign promise is not a rebuttal to it's being pork. Politicians often brag about the pork they brought home in their campaigns.

That does not address anything in my response. Campaign promises do not equal pork. Moreover, the notion that a policy or a campaign promise is pork unless it benefits a sufficiently large and diverse population makes the notion of "pork barrel" absolutely pointless.

You're still not rebutting anything.

It being a campaign promise has nothing to do with whether it is pork.

I am not interested in dealing with your straw men or lack of reasoning. Making a campaign promise, in and of itself, does not make the promise an example of pork barrel politics. Moreover, one person considers "pork", another person may not.

The OP definition of "pork barrel" describes almost any gov't policy, making the definition effectively pointless. Finally, as a general observation, a policy that provide benefits to a small group of people at the cost to many more people can still provide an overall net positive benefit to the country. It is an empirical question whether the debt forgiveness program reaches an overall net benefit or not. Calling it "pork barrel" is a kneejerk attempt to disparage the policy.

You still aren't rebutting anything.

Pork is stuff that is enacted to help the politician (either through votes or doing things that will get campaign contributions) instead of the population at large. You have done nothing to rebut the notion that this is pork.

 

[laughing dog]

First, I wasn't addressing whether it was right or not, but rather your response.
Is there a point?

Second, it being a campaign promise is not a rebuttal to it's being pork. Politicians often brag about the pork they brought home in their campaigns.

That does not address anything in my response. Campaign promises do not equal pork. Moreover, the notion that a policy or a campaign promise is pork unless it benefits a sufficiently large and diverse population makes the notion of "pork barrel" absolutely pointless.

You're still not rebutting anything.

It being a campaign promise has nothing to do with whether it is pork.

I am not interested in dealing with your straw men or lack of reasoning. Making a campaign promise, in and of itself, does not make the promise an example of pork barrel politics. Moreover, one person considers "pork", another person may not.

The OP definition of "pork barrel" describes almost any gov't policy, making the definition effectively pointless. Finally, as a general observation, a policy that provide benefits to a small group of people at the cost to many more people can still provide an overall net positive benefit to the country. It is an empirical question whether the debt forgiveness program reaches an overall net benefit or not. Calling it "pork barrel" is a kneejerk attempt to disparage the policy.

You still aren't rebutting anything.

You are wrong.

Pork is stuff that is enacted to help the politician (either through votes or doing things that will get campaign contributions) instead of the population at large. You have done nothing to rebut the notion that this is pork.

According to your definition, just about any promise or policy made by a politician is a pork because very few promises or policies affect the population at large. Which makes the label "pork" pretty much useless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, I wasn't addressing whether it was right or not, but rather your response.
Is there a point?

Second, it being a campaign promise is not a rebuttal to it's being pork. Politicians often brag about the pork they brought home in their campaigns.

That does not address anything in my response. Campaign promises do not equal pork. Moreover, the notion that a policy or a campaign promise is pork unless it benefits a sufficiently large and diverse population makes the notion of "pork barrel" absolutely pointless.

You're still not rebutting anything.

It being a campaign promise has nothing to do with whether it is pork.

I am not interested in dealing with your straw men or lack of reasoning. Making a campaign promise, in and of itself, does not make the promise an example of pork barrel politics. Moreover, one person considers "pork", another person may not.

The OP definition of "pork barrel" describes almost any gov't policy, making the definition effectively pointless. Finally, as a general observation, a policy that provide benefits to a small group of people at the cost to many more people can still provide an overall net positive benefit to the country. It is an empirical question whether the debt forgiveness program reaches an overall net benefit or not. Calling it "pork barrel" is a kneejerk attempt to disparage the policy.

You still aren't rebutting anything.

You are wrong.

Pork is stuff that is enacted to help the politician (either through votes or doing things that will get campaign contributions) instead of the population at large. You have done nothing to rebut the notion that this is pork.

According to your definition, just about any promise or policy made by a politician is a pork because very few promises or policies affect the population at large. Which makes the label "pork" pretty much useless.

No. Presidents can promise things of value to the nation as a whole. Pork is specifically about things that aren't worthwhile overall. A lot of military stuff. The SLS.