Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Pork barrel, or simply pork, is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to direct expenditures to a representative's district. The usage originated in American English , and it indicates a negotiated way of political particularism .
Earmarks have often been treated as being synonymous with "pork barrel" legislation. [28] Despite considerable overlap, [29] the two are not the same: what constitutes an earmark is an objective determination, while what is "pork-barrel" spending is subjective. [30] One legislator's "pork" is another's vital project. [31] [32]
The law garnered a large amount of bipartisan support, though support was not unanimous, particularly among those who believed it to be laden with too much pork barrel spending. Early versions of the bill budgeted over $300 billion, but President Bush promised to veto any surface transportation bill costing more than $256 billion.
An iron triangle relationship can result in regulatory capture, the passing of very narrow, pork-barrel policies that benefit a small segment of the population. The interests of the agency's constituency (the interest groups) are met, while the needs of consumers (which may be the general public) are passed over.
Some politicians take a hard-line stance against pork and have worked to eliminate pork from Congress. [citation needed] An early-21st-century example of attempted pork barrel spending was the Gravina Island Bridge, a proposed Alaska bridge which attracted so much national attention as a "bridge to nowhere" that the earmark for it was removed.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In accordance of Rule XXV of the United States Senate, all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects is referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations: Appropriation of the revenue for the support of the Government, except as provided in subparagraph (e);
The Government should review legislation that restricts protest based on “knee-jerk public opinion”, a think tank has said. Cross-party think tank Demos said it had found “overwhelming ...