How does one define "pork"

Just what is "pork", and why do some seemingly legitimate sounding projects rate this label?

Q: How does CAGW define pork?

A:
Pork-barrel projects are those that get federal funding by circumventing established budgetary procedures. To qualify as pork and merit inclusion in the Pig Book, a project must meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:

* Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
* Not specifically authorized;
* Not competitively awarded;
* Not requested by the President;
* Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
* Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
* Serves only a local or special interest.

This seven-point criterion was developed in 1991 by Citizens Against Government Waste and the Congressional Porkbusters Coalition. The “status” column in the complete Pig Book database designates the criteria met by each project.

There is an established, legitimate process for a member of Congress to get federal funding for a local project — a process designed to enforce some degree of accountability and fairness. If a project circumvents that process, it becomes pork.

Pork-barrel projects are often “tacked-on” by well-placed members of Congress, usually those that sit on the House or Senate Appropriations Committees. This removes accountability and further compromises a budget process that is already on the brink of chaos. Without authorization, or a competition, or a request from the agency, there is no oversight or scrutiny to separate the good projects from the bad. There is also no sure way of knowing who was responsible for including the project, nor is there any follow-up to see whether the money gets used for the stated purpose, and if it does, whether the project accomplishes its intended goal. Most importantly, there is no limit to the amount of projects included in the federal budget. The practice also assures that a disproportionate amount of projects will go to the states and districts of appropriation committee members.

While many "pork" projects are in and of themselves good ideas and good things to fund, bypassing the process removes the accountability and controls on federal dollars. And this results in our tax dollars going to fund not only projects at home that benefit us, but crap projects nationwide that get little or no scrutiny for their merit or level of waste.

Now that we've defined the problem, here's some "local kine" pork from the islands:

$7,500,000 Maui Advanced Electro-Optical System Primary Mirror Coating Facility (Air Force)
$5,000,000 Hickam Air Force Base electrical upgrade (Air Force)
$5,100,000 Pearl Harbor Drydock 4 shorepower improvements (Navy)
$8,000,000 Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), Saddle Road (Phase IIB) (Army)
Total pork - $25,600,000.

Now someone out there is going to scream "support the troops", or "you can't consider MILITARY spending pork...that's unpatriotic".

Bull. You forget that I'm in the military...I know how much military waste there is. And again, let's look at the method, which is what really makes this pork.

The Department of Defense didn't ask for this spending in their budget request. The White House didn't ask for it. It was either Sen. Inouye, Sen. Akaka, Rep. Abercrombie, or Rep. Case. So if the DoD doesn't think they need this, what makes a Senator or Congressman more in tune with the military's needs?

Votes. Local support. This stuff brings in money (which isn't a bad thing), and money makes people happy. The politician can then say "see what I did for you" come election time.

There is a process for this sort of thing. If all of Congress followed it, and if the Executive Branch did so as well, I bet we would be closer to not being in a massive multi-trillion national debt situation.

porkbusters