by Tom Ontis

Created on: December 19, 2008

Congress holds the purse strings for our country. They are a legally elected bodies, who are given the right, by the Constitution to, among othr things, spend money. Bills are supposed to reflect issues of the common good of the country, but in reality, many bills spend money on pet projects of well healed representatives.

Over the past decades the terms 'earmark' and 'pork barrel spending' have entered the political lexicon. Simply it is a request by a representative to fund a project in only one district: His or hers. Sounds deceitful, but it isn't. Almost every member of Congress has requested from time to time special funding for their districts, no matter what it is called. The earmarks, which quite often are slipped into a popular bill late in the evening when members are tired and just want to go home, are not always the most popular spending measures in the country.

During the recent 2008 election, President-elect Obama was accused of requesting almost $1 billion in his three years in his three years in the Senate. Foul, cried his Republican opponent, who claimed he had never requested an 'earmark' in his 30 Congressional career. Reality set in when a little digging took place by the national press and realized much of the money Obama had requested and was granted, went for unfinished public, or quasi-public buildings, like hospitals and community centers in his south Chicago home. What is wrong with that kind of spending? Isn't Congress supposed to serve the interest of the public? Granted, there are billions in 'earmarks' that fund silly projects like a sampling of frog DNA, as with a recent case.

Consider this also: The $18 billion in 'earmarks' add up to less than ne percent of the Federal government's total budget appropriations. Some members of Congress have been more adept at getting 'earmarks' for projects within their districts. Senator Robert Byrd, (D-W.Va) is sometimes referred to as the 'King of Pork.'

Earmarks have funded hospitals, community centers, improved handicapped access to public buildings. They improve the quality of life. Where I live, 'earmarks' have funded expansion of inter city transportation systems and freeway construction to help elleiivate congestion.

I say 'No.' Congress should not end the practice, but maybe they should use the funds in a more shrewed manner than the study of frog DNA, the kind of spending that gets the attention of the press.

Learn more about this author, Tom Ontis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.