Explain to this non-American: Why don't you outlaw earmarks or pork?

[glarius]

This is something that puzzles me completely. In my country and I believe other democracies, (Great Britain, France, Germany, etc.), when a bill comes into effect, it only contains the reason for it's being in the first place. There is nothing added by anyone. No pork or special add-ons. Why doesn't your government pass a law prohibiting all these add-ons? This would stop all the sort of nonsense that is going on right now in Washington. It seems like such an obvious solution to me I wonder why it wasn't done a long time ago.....Or am I missing something?

[nebenaube]

1. our system is based on human nature...

that is it was supposed to be a system of checks and balances against the inherent corruption that comes with attaining power.
It has failed...

[glarius]

3. Please explain to me how adding pork to a proposed bill is

connected to checks and balances?

[Imperialism Inc.]

11. Because it is a way for the legislature to make sure the executive spends

money in specific ways. For example, say they pass a $100 bn highway package. If they just don't name specific highways to be built or repaired then the executive branch just gets to pick.

[Smith_3]

2. Moreover, how did the Democratic party get branded the party of porkbarrel spending?

When it is Republicans who primarily take care of special interest groups :shrug:

I guess they consider spending on education and infrastructure an earmark.

[dbonds]

Earmarks are not bad, it is misusing them that is bad.

They are necessary. You pass a billion dollar budget and you want to insure 50 million of it goes to rebuilding New Orleans (I wish they would earmark that) then you use earmarks. It is misused when it goes for projects that are not needed but used to repay someone that contributed to a campaign.

[slackmaster]

It's so deeply embedded in our system, there's no way we could pass such a law

We've tried with things like line-item vetos.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. It isn't a matter of law

Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution says that the House of Representatives and the Senate "may determine the rules of its proceedings." This includes the manner of writing and passing bills. Prohibition of riders and other add-ons would require either that the House and Senate both change their operating procedures, or the US Constitution would have to be amended to explicitly ban them.

As for why this hasn't been done, the answer is very simple: politicians will not get rid of anything that might be of advantage to them latter. Basically, add-ons allow for horse-trading.

I am incined to agree with you, and many states have such rules. The Washington Constitution, for example, expressly states that all bills, whether legislated or proposed by initiative, may cover one and only one subject.

[gratuitous]

5. What's pork?

A subsidy to build a highway in Kansas looks like pork in California, but it might be a very important program in Kansas. As for earmarks, they were instituted because money was provided for one thing, but wound up being used for something else entirely. In and of themselves, an earmark makes sure that an appropriation for a new school actually gets spent building a school instead of being converted to the governor's office beautification project. Naturally, it's subject to abuse, but earmarks (that is, designated, directed spending for a specific project) make up a very small percentage (less than 5%, I believe) of federal outlays.

[Winterblues]

6. You are missing something

America has fifty separate States that get a substantial portion of their funding from the Federal Government. It is how those State's Representatives attach their own special needs to certain bills that they get that funding. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "earmarks" and one person's "pork" is another's essentials. Sometimes Representatives get carried away and try to sneak in extra funding for "pork" projects that mainly benefit campaign contributors but actually that is getting more rare because people are paying more attention and asking more questions. Actually one reason we are in the financial crisis we currently are in is because during the "Torture pResident's" time most all money was diverted to military and "war" and the States were left to fend for themselves. Because the loss of Federal funding was so huge most states have not been able to make up the difference, so most infrastructure projects have been put on hold. Believe it or not but Government provides the impetus for a tremendous amount of Labor in the USA.

[Uzybone]

7. Beacuse one mans pork is another mans essential services

The GOP call re-sodding the national mall pork. But in reality its thousands of jobs and taking care of our national edifices.

[Greyhound]

8. Bribery and graft are the fuel of Washington DC.

Getting those addicted to it to pass a law to stop it is about as likely as PETA throwing a Bar-B-Q.

[Imperialism Inc.]

9. I think others covered it pretty well but I would frame it as

an executive branch vs legislative branch thing. If money isn't earmarked for a specific project then the executive branch just decides how to spend it. It is a way for the legislature to make sure some of the money goes to specific things. It isn't bad in and of itself though it can be abused.

[Spazito]

10. Actually, we just deliver the pork via a different means....

There IS pork in every budget bill, payoffs for some Provinces for future votes. Our government then simply doles out cash to various pet projects throughout the year because they don't have to do it via a bill in the legislature.

One has only to look at what the faux cons have doled out over the past two years and to whom as well as look at the timing of such 'generosity'.

The Liberals did the same while they were in government. Our pork is simply distributed via a different avenue with even less oversight than the US has, as poor as theirs is, imo.

[glarius]

17. What you say is true, but I'm only referring to the passing of bills or laws.

Our bills, so far as I know, DON'T allow for any MP who wants to, to add on their own little extras. This practice in the American system is responsible for so much of their legislation being held up or even not passed. IMO.

[Spazito]

19. The point I was making is "pork" exists on both sides of the border....

we have a Parliamentary system which means we can provide pork using that system whereas the US has a different governance system which is what they use to do the same.

One difference your question did bring to the fore in my mind is that deliberately frivolous pork is inserted in their bills by the minority often to try and ensure the overall bill fails whereas, because we don't have to insert pork into bills to spread the 'largess', bills put forward by our government pass or fail more on substance than on deliberate sabotage, imo.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. It is an awkward system. BUT...

Unlike most other democracies, we were formed as a union of separate states. Our representatives have at least as much allegiance to their particular state as they do to the country as a whole.

Because of that, it is very difficult for legislation to pass which a representative writes to benefit his constituents, thus the earmark.

It is imperfect, but the alternative is very little federal benefit flowing to individual states, and the administration having basically complete control over where federal dollars get spent.

[Matariki]

13. I've always wondered that too.

It's baffling. On the other hand, in this country, there would probably be no money for the Arts and Scientific studies without it. :shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Because We're Not Canada.

The two countries and governments are incomparable.

[NashVegas]

15. Because They Help Bills Get Passed

Congressman 1: Vote for a law requiring all TV stations to stop broadcasting analog and go digital? No way!

Congressman 2: Did you see this provision for 15 new playgrounds in your district?

Congressman 1: When do we vote?

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

16. because one persons pork or earmarks

are another persons roads, bridges, parks and swimming facilities.

[LSdemocrat]

18. In the US, legislation doesn't originate from the executive or the cabinet

While the President may propose that a bill be brought up in Congress, Congress need not take any action, as it is the only body that can originate, and therefore write and amend, legislation.

[johnaries]

20. That's how most Congress gets re-elected.

If they bring home the bacon, their constituents vote for them again.

[yurbud]

21. no one would run for office then. That's why we don't have good ethics laws either

[RB TexLa]

22. It's only called pork if it's a project not in your state or parish or city.

Such as, "We in Cityville receive needed government programs that our tax dollars fund, while other cities waste our tax dollars on pork."

[ThomWV]

23. Please remember - Pork and earmarks are not the same thing

Pork refers to getting federal money that is spent on a new Federal Program to improve the lot of some constituent. For instance we have Robert Byrd creating the multi-billion dollar Clean Coal program.

Earmarks designate that some pet project or another will be funded within an existing program. The pet projects still have to met all of the requirements of the program they fall under. So here we have the Robert Byrd Federal Expressway which is an interstate built with government matching funds (WV paid some part of the price of building it) to all interstate highway rules under an existing interstate highway building program, using money appropriated for that program, being directed to one specifice road building project in a place or between points that otherwise might or might not have been considered for funding.