Canon Chapter 12
Respond to question # 3 at the end of the chapter, using your insights from Paige, Cohn and your main text.
posted by Mr. K @ 9:17 AM
12 comments
Walker Political Science Discussion
Welcome to the Political Science Discussion Page for the Walker School. Although technically this is a public blog, we would appreciate it if you not post comments unless you are a member of this class.
12 Comments:
I feel like Paige made a strong case for the damaging effects of sneaking pork barrel budget legislation into other national legislation. I agree that Congressional representatives are supposed to look out for their constituents; but I do not think local interests should be lumped together with unrelated, bigger national legislation. The practices Paige describes undermine the possibility for reasonable, carefully thought out legislation. I mean, it seems highly unlikely that the congressmen voting on the budget bill would ever read all of its "40-pound, 16-inch, 4,000-page" porkines: which means that Congressmen vote without knowing what they are voting for. Seems reckless, doesn't it? No wonder that when financial crises hit, no one knows who to blame or how to fix it.
I find the practice of slapping pork-barrel projects onto unrelated bills objectionable not so much as a sign of the self-serving nature of politicians, but more on the principle that representatives should know exactly what policies they are supporting. Politicians should not blindly support projects, should not be forced to do so as the only way of getting their own local or national concerns addressed. Amendments should not be hastily slapped onto bills last-minute, and amendments to bills should be reasonably related to the subject of the bill. Perhaps multiple local projects could be lumped together in bills dealing only with local projects (and not, for example, bills dealing with foreign policy or national government projects). It seems like bills should be more categorized and less haphazard. I guess a main problem is the measure of subjectivity regarding what could be considered "related" to a national budgetary bill, or what could be considered a wasteful "pork" project anyway, as Cohn addresses. So the real difficulty lies in the inability to successfully define rules for these practices in technical terms. People love to ignore common sense in favor of technicalities when it's convenient. I know I do.
I find it very interesting that Cohn defends some projects which have been condemned as pork, but agrees with the condemnation of others. Further proof of the subjectivity of the matter. I also find his citation of political scientists James Q. Wilson (James Wilson?? Sorry. I was watching House earlier...), who says "if you agree with Madison, you believe in pork". I think that's oversimplifying, but...okay, sure. In oversimplified terms, yeah, I can reluctantly kind of agree. But on the other hand, Craig and Simpson cite the Constitution in support of earmarking. I guess, as usual, I fall somewhere in between the two sides of the argument. I don't like the practice of earmarking and pork barrel projects, but I can appreciate the potential benefits. I like what Craig and Simpson had to say in closing: "That being said, we realize that change is needed in the appropriations process. But those changes should be the result of a reasoned, well-informed debate, not a knee-jerk desire to defuse controversy and shift attention." In the context of everything that Craig and Simpson had to say, the conclusion sounds like politicians reluctant to change making nice words. But I feel like this idea of reasonable and well-thought out action should apply to all legislation, not just to the change that could bring about such practice.
After reading both arguments, I felt pretty undecided about pork barrel projects. On one hand, I agree with Paige. I think that there are too many unnecessary pork barrel projects that politicians try to sneak into the national legislation, especially when they do so just to get re-elected. On the other hand, Cohn makes a strong argument that pork barrel projects are actually the “glue” of legislation and that politicians need to push some of these projects because they represent the needs of their constituents.
I agree with Audrey’s statement at the end of her second paragraph. The real problem is defining what relevant national legislation is and what a “wasteful” pork project is. Cohn makes an argument that many pork projects are not actually wasteful, but actually important to the people that they serve. Though, I had to ask myself, is Congress the real place to bring up these projects? Paige makes the argument that the national interest is a balanced budget and that should take priority over local projects.
Well, I find myself agreeing with Audrey a lot, since she was the only other one who posted. I agree with her last statement as well. All legislation should be well thought out and not the result of Congressmen desperate to get re elected or to defuse controversy. I still haven’t chosen a side because I think it’s not really something you can chose a side over. Congress should be focused on both national and local issues, but there needs to be a better balance.
P.S. I would have done this over the weekend had I remembered Canon...
First of all, I agree with audrey about pork barrell spending objectionable, but I also agree with Senator Craig in that, "If we abandon the pratice of earmarking funding for our home states, those decisions will instead be made by people who have no accountability to the taxpayers." That is why we should refrom the earmark system in order to make it possiable for senators and congressmen to get federal funds to help in their constituentcies.
i think that instead of earmarks, persons in the legislature should be allowed to go before a commitee of some type to ask for money for their districts. Thats just a thought on it. It would be hard, though, to keep people from getting re-elected on the basis of money they make for the voters. People want to see results from an elected offical and money is results. However, i think that the members of congress should balance most of their time between national issues and the issues facing people. Point in case, a senator form Montana is not going to know as much about my needs as Saxby Chambliss, and vice-vera. Also, each congressman or senator doesn't represent every person in america, but only the people who voted for him or her.
When I first read the definition of pork barrel legislation, I had made up my mind that I would most definitely be against any type of legislation. But as I began to read more into it, I slowly changed my stance. Although it is very easy to argue that pork is simply a waste of federal money, I find that the pro's of this legislation outweigh the con's. Since this legislation consumes less than one per cent of the federal budget, it's infrastructural benefits are well worth the money. Today our infrastructure is crumbling, and for such little cost, we should encourage pork in congress. I suppose that if you did wish to regulate this legislation, you would simply pass a law that limits how much pork each congressman can pass. This would cut down on the pork. Congressman may pass pork simply because it benefits them, but it benefits many others as well. States, workers, and citizens particularly. Yes, Congressman should be more focused on broad national issues, but in the end, pork barrel legislation isn't all that bad.
Well I'm going to try to take the middle road on this one. I think John was indeed right when suggesting that pork is nessecary to the infrastructure of America in that it provides a method by which government officials can directly provide for the wants and needs of their constituents (the very people who elected said official to provide those wants and needs.) However it is slightly unnerving that as Audrey suggested that sometimes (more often than not actually) legislation is voting to pass or not pass a budget bill with "God knows what" concealed in its intimidating girth. Though one thing I would like to present is the actual interaction between state and national government. While legislation is technically a national body pork budgets clearly illustrate how these law makers are more often than we think representing the views and seeking to gain benefits for their state rather than for the benefit of the greater nation. Look at it in terms of general wealth. while there are wealthy areas in all states there are also very poor areas in all states. A legislator is going to support or oppose the simple usage of pork based on whether their voter base has anything to gain from pork. McCain in the second debate (i think) kept bringing up the fact that Obama had used pork to purchase a new projector for the Chicago planetarium. I haven't talked to anyone who has been mortally offended by said expenditure but it is an example of how pork is used. I believe this expenditure is fairly legititmate in that it is supporting education in a more subtle way than simply pumping more money into the school budget where it will inevitably fall into the laps of some higher level administrator. Of course McCain is going to oppose it since the majority of his voters can afford their own planetarium projector to go with their home theatre system thanks to major tax cuts to the wealthy he wishes to provide (gross overstatement guys don't worry) .
Not only do I think pork and earmarks are concerning, the rate at which they are increasing in Congress is downright alarming. While arguments for it are somewhat reasonable, including the small percentage and how it helps those in the states who receive the benefit, I still believe that the way in which it is distributed is deceitful and wrong. Senators are sent to represent people in the national government, not to get as much money for the home state as possible. I think we should have the line-item veto to help get rid of Senators taking advantage of emergency situations. Also, I believe that all pork spending should, by law, have to be clearly disclosed by the people that put it in the bills.
Since by now the whole class knows I only get enjoyment out of life when I’m a douchebag (thanks to Ryan), I am going to have to argue with Ian. I think it’s wrong for Obama to add on an earmark to get a million dollar projector for his Chicago Planetarium. People all over the country pay those taxes, and I do not want my money (that is, when I have an income and pay taxes) to go to people in Chicago. That is the job of the people in Chicago or Illinois. If Obama really felt that every taxpayer in America should pay for his projector, then he should have proposed an independent bill for it and argued for the projector. The money could have then been used to do things that help everyone. (Although, throughout John McCain’s anti-pork barrel spending talks, I cannot help but wonder if some of the people in Arizona feel as if they are getting screwed by the fact that other Senators get pork for their constituents but McCain refuses to get pork money for his people.)
I greatly object to the system of pork barrel spending. The purpose of congress members is to represent their constituencies in the national government’s law making process and not to go around dividing up money to spend on projects to benefit those they represent. It is the job of the local and state governments to take care of such projects. They should find the money to pay for the road projects, bridges, and educational initiatives amongst their own tax payers. Why should national tax dollars be divided between constituencies who end up using the money for completely different projects? I think that if you live in Alaska and want a bridge to “nowhere” then you are entitled to that bridge as long as you pay for it yourself. Why should tax dollars from Georgia go to fund the building of a bridge in Alaska? It would be very difficult to make any changes which would alter this legislative behavior, but I do think it is possible. Each constituency could be assigned the same amount of money to spend on pork barrel projects which would prevent the large success rate of incumbents. Re-election would be based on how the congress member spent their funds or how they dealt with their congressional duties rather then how much money they were able to get for their region. I personally do want Congress to be more concerned with national issues than local ones. The state and local governments can worry about the problems in their districts; the members of Congress should be concerned with representing their constituency’s opinions on national issues. I realize that it is unlikely that pork spending will end anytime soon, thus I think a current action which would be enormously beneficial is to reform the process through which funds are divided and earmarked for certain projects. Every single expense should be concisely recorded and analyzed for its national benefit. The thing which infuriates me most about pork barrel spending is that congress members are willing to let the country go into debt, in many cases, to fund unnecessary projects which do not benefit the nation as a whole in any way.
I believe that the practice of pork barrel spending and earmarking are both undesirable yet required of congressmen by their constituents. Consequently, it is necessary that a reform be made to legislation processes that control earmarking and pork barrel spending. I feel the most successful way would be, as Audrey suggested, to require the congressman to clearly define the spending they propose whether it is attached to some committee spending or tacked onto a huge bill in either case it must be presented. I do not believe that it is possible to change the incentives congressmen have for reelection because people want to see their representative bring home the bacon, so to speak. For this reason it is hard to take a stand against the spending because if we all see spending that comes our way as beneficial and so does everyone else in every other circumstance. As I said before the only way to successfully cut back the spending and still provide for your district is to require all spending to be presented to the body of congressmen. The shear time it would take to go through all the spending would cut back on some of it because they don't want to be bogged down by the enormity of it, and truly important and beneficial spending would still have the opportunity to pass. I believe that a successful congressmen must act with dual commitment: they must first chiefly their country (which they are in Washington to serve) but they must not forget about their constituents who they are also their to serve. They must act with intentions that serve both the country and their area.
I agree with Jarrod almost completely. I think the whole concept of pork barrel spending and earmarks is kind of corrupt and made to cheat the way the system is supposed to work. I think they are just ways to hide where Federal tax money is actually going and can sometimes be very counterproductive. They also contribute greatly to the National debt. But a senator’s job is to represent the state and its constituents. This means fighting for the well being of those in the state. But I think like a federalist in that, I believe a state should be responsible for the upkeep of its territory for the most part. Also, with the economy being in the condition that it is, Congress needs to be extra cautious with spending, period. And if I am being taxed for something I want to know exactly where my money is going towards. I think pork barrel spending and earmarks are an ugly practice, but aren't all other aspects of politics? Sad to say, as much as I disagree with the two in theory, they re in fact necessary in the process of American government.
Totally agree with what Jarrod and Alexcia said. Pork barrelling and earmarking are both concerning, and it is even more alarming at the rate at which they are occuring like Jarrod said. Obviously Congressional reps are there to represent the people that elected them, but having fiscal means, for their particular represented area, at the helm of their ideas for national legislation is wrong and again is a serious problem in our political society. The funds set aside for a specific purpose or people (an earmark) are essential to helping some groups, people, and organizations, but we must not allow it to get out of hand. I think Obama would let it get out of hand, but what do I know.
As I was preparing for the debate, I noticed that the term pork and pork-barrel spending were tossed around when referring to both candidates and how they will try to limit the amount of pork barrel spending Congress allows. I was vehemently against such spending until I read 12 which laid out both sides on what I thought was a one-sided issue without a doubt. I qualify with Paige and Cohn's arguments. On the one hand, too much of this spending is unhealthy as it defeats voting totally and completely for the people that a Congressman represents, because the little earmarks in the bill distract from the larger issue. On the other hand, pork does help issues become more prominent in congress that would otherwise go unrecognized and also allows the Congressman to feel good about improving the situation of his constituents (even if they do take unjust credit for it). I think that a viable solution might relate to what we discussed in class--making a system with Open Rule and Closed Rule for pork and earmarks. This would allow it in certain approved issue (I have no idea what constitutes an approved issue, mind you), but not a bill that would be a waste of time and money otherwise. Of course with this system you get the same problems that the House has with conflicting interests and manipulation of the Open/Closed Rule system, but it’s at least a start. At face value, I think everyone would respond that they want Congressmen to focus on national issues. However, everyone wants to have their needs met by their representatives and care about the community that they live in and want it to develop as they see fit. Unfortunately, we reach an impasse here and it is really hard to balance the needs of the people and the needs of the nation in Congress.
I completely forgot about this blog. My B. I understand Congressmembers reasons behind their actions. It is their job to look after their constituents and by disregarding this obligation they would soon lose their occupation. Congressmen are merely looking out for themselves as well as those they represent. Yet, pork barrel projects seem like a very underhanded way to push local interests. I am not saying I would not do it if I was a member of congress, but, because I am not, I strongly oppose this type of legislation. I think local projects should be able to gain enough money on their own within their own local budget rather than tack on to national legislation. Its as if the members of congress are being reelected and rewarded for backhanded trickery by sneaking in pork projects. I am a little bit mad to know that some of the money I give to the government through taxes will never benefit me, while I pay for a new igloo for some inuits in Alaska who have no jobs. I realise this is an exagerrated example, but I believe it pushes my point. Yet at the same time, I believe Congress should definately continue to represent the interests of their respective local constituents rather than primarily focus on national issues. After all, Congress is made up of the people we elect as citizens of the USA to represent us. I want my guy to be looking after me. Of course this roundabout and self interested thinking is what keeps us in this process. Lastly, although we may not agree with what is happening with pork barrel projects in legislation, it does seem to be working in some twisted fashion.
Post a Comment
<< Home