One of the funnier claims about the 1994 takeover of Congress was that the Republicans wouldn’t be pork driven. To anyone who studies the institution this was pure hogwash because pork isn’t some moral restraint issue, it is an issue of institutional incentives. Mayhew argued that one could not design a better institution to serve the reelection neds of its Members than the US House and pork is an integral part of that.
Novak launches into a broadside against pork in one of his recent columns,
The highway bill marks the absolute termination of the Gingrich Revolution ushered in by the 1994 sweep. In the face of Bush’s repeated veto threats, Republicans are determined to pass a bill filled with earmarked spending for individual members of Congress. The 1982 highway bill contained only 10 earmarks. The 1991 bill, the last highway bill passed under Democratic leadership, contained 538 such projects. But the addiction for pork has grown so large that the current bill contains at least 3,193 earmarks.
The addiction is bipartisan, thanks to the policy of the House’s reigning king of pork. While House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young has packed the bill with money for his state of Alaska, he makes sure Democrats are allocated their share of money for roads and other goodies in order to build a bipartisan majority on the floor.
Overdoing pork, such as in this case, is bad. But pork also produces a way to govern done in moderation. Without it and with generally weak parties, pork provides a manner to create majorities where they might not exist.
Make no mistake, that pork will not go away. However, if one is truly upset about it, one should consider institutional change, not just a party change.