Bacon vs. Pork

A blog [can't remember which one] had a game where you could vote bacon or pork on various earmarks contained in last year's budget bill. I started to vote when I realized that all of what was listed was pork [defined as a specific allocation by a Congressman for a specific project, often run by a specific entity]. What is missed in the discussion of these projects is not whether or not they have merit but whether or not this is an adequate way to make policy. Removing gang tatoos is a worthwhile project, building an interchange to improve traffic flow is also, even research into mitigating odor from hog farms. What makes all of these projects pork is that the decision to fund these "worthwhile" projects is not made by any rational, fairly based system, but rather to line the pockets of a legislator with campaign contributions, benefit a friend or ally, or to curry favor at home with a constituent group. These decisions are made without regard to the priority of the project on a state or national basis, without regard to the competence of the entity to perform the task, or the wishes of the locality that is the recipient of the largess.

Most federal grants are required by Congress to be competitive, as are almost all contracts that carry out the project or program being awarded. They require the applicant to demonstrate why its project is better vis-a-vis another project. They require some demonstration of capactity to perform. The priorities are set by Congress by their allocation of a set amount of money to the program and presumably as a result incorporate a priority setting process for what's important and essential. None of this applies to earmarks. Some of these projects are worthwhile, some may even be essential to the well being of an area, but none of this really matters because of the manner in which the earmarks are made.

Earmarks are perhaps the most corrupting practice in Congress outside campaign contributions. They are often repayments for those contributions, but even when they are unsullied by such, they are allowed to skew priorities and, based on a lawmakers standing, allowed to reward projects and places that may not need or be able to use the money effectively and efficiently. But that is ok with the lawmakers because of the political rewards they see such earmarks providing. One lawmaker bristled at the idea that such decisions should be made by faceless bureacrats [who are making decisions on criteria established by Congress and attempting to carry out Congressional intent in a fair and equitable manner] instead of a lawmaker who has his pulse on the local people. However, any benefit of having the pulse of the people is lost by the failure to have a systematic and transparent way of evaluating the projects which might result in effective priority setting, efficient use of funds, and ensuring that money is spent where it is most needed in a way that isn't designed to make some lawmakers friends and supporters rich.

I doubt that we will ever get rid of earmarks because politicians value their political capital. However, would it be so unreasonable that earmarks be less than a set percentage of discretionary funds? Would it be unreasonable that they compete with all the other earmarks sought for a particular bill? Would it be unreasonable that Congress figures out someway to more fairly and openly evaluate the earmark other than the seniority or influence of the lawmakers?