posted
I've heard talk that the latest Transportation bill (enacted in August) is a particularly salient example of "pork" in the legislative process. As in "bringing home the bacon" by Representatives and Senators.
Do people see this amount of legislative ear marking in other areas?
In your view is this a problem with how we craft legislation, or is it just the cost of reaching the consensus necessary to get a complex budget process through to completion?
If it IS a problem in your view, WHY is it a problem? And, of course, what should we do about it?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it a problem? The easy answer is because money is spent on some things that are lower national priorities than some things money isn't spent.
The larger answer? Because it's the concrete, visible, and unashamed example of what de Tocqueville called "brib[ing] the people with their own money." It's part of a system that includes Gerrymandering, campaign finance, and two-party advantage that greatly favors incumbents.
What should we do? What we should do is not re-elect people who vote for earmarks. But that ain't gonna happen as long as people are OK with the earmarks their own reps bring in to their district.
A line item veto might work, but it also might just be another club - you want federal money, you better elect a <whatever party the president is>.
A single subject amendment might work, but it's probably too inefficient for the federal government as a whole.
Moving financial decision-making closer to the people (i.e., into state legislatures) might help, because there's less possibility of getting other people to pay for your own pork that way. Of course, there are other problems with that scenario.
I hope someone figures it out soon, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee -- there's a very interesting, and very successful, approach the EU has to the issue.
The making of legislation is two-tier (three-tier in some ways). There's the Council of Ministers(/Parliament), which makes broad, policy-oriented legislation, and then the Commission, which makes administrative legislation to effect the Council of Ministers(/Parliament)'s policy legislation.
Perusing a back copy of the Journal of the EU, there's a piece of legislation from the Council of Ministers (and this is more specific then they usually get) establishing a common market for hops. It lays out some basics, certain sorts of information the hops need to be certified with, a few standards (which aren't specified numerically, but based on other variables and desired effects), that sort of thing. There's no pork, nor any room for there to be pork.
The entire thing is 6 pages (really 5, the first page is all whereas's).
After law like this is made, the Commission gets to work out how to implement that law as far as details go. Their procedures are more opaque to the public, involving a complex system known as comitology, but also are more constrained. If a citizen (or certain other actors) feels the Commission administrative law goes beyond the bounds of the Council of Ministers policy law, he or she can bring a complaint to the EU court system, seeking the overturn of the Commission administrative law (the Council of Ministers can also send further legislation smacking the hand of the Commission if they go too far).
Additionally, certain sorts of legislation merely set goals (sometimes very general ones) that member states in the EU must create programs, designed as they choose, towards reaching. The policy decision making remains high up, but the details, including on what money is spent, are transferred to a lower level.
And, at the EU level, there really isn't pork, not in the way pork is usually meant. Yes, certain districts/regions/nations receive allocations at times that may seem like political favoritism, but its almost always due to direct legislation on that issue, not amendments irrelevant to the basic notion of the bill. It is explicitly done, not hidden.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting fugu. It sure beats just firing off an angry letter.
Dag, I totally agree.
The transportation bill is called SAFETEA-LU. The LU stands for "Legacy for Users." I think it's about some sort of addiction.
At it's heart, the SAFETEA-LU legislation is about financial accountability. All states are required to have multiple interelated plans that document their needs in the transportation sector and show how proposed projects fit into the plan: - where the money comes from - what problem the project addressses - how performance of the project will be measured - WHAT THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT is.
Ironically, over 10% of the money in this bill comes to the states in the form of setasides that say, basically: "YOU WILL DO THIS PROJECT" - here's the money - we don't care if addresses a real problem or not - performance measures? what are those? - ROI? This project is YOUR return on investing in ME, your Congressional Delegate/Senator
IMHO, Congress simply undercut their own bill.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
