by Mark G. Sullivan

Created on: May 05, 2009

Each year the voting public hears the same from their representatives in Washington. "The federal budget is spiraling out of control due to uncontrolled expenditures. I as your representative in Washington will work hard at stopping the free wheeling process of needless and wasteful spending of your tax dollars." Yet, as many voters know, these words ring hollow for the budget does not shrink, but continues to grow at a heart-stopping rate.

Certainly, the funds needed each year for education, defense, social security, etc. increases, but the problem does not rest here. Pork barrel spending or pork barrel projects describe the controversial practice of using taxpayers' money to fund pet projects. The debate arises when the requests for these funds are buried in bills that have nothing to do with this type of expenditure.

Although most Americans agree that pork barrel spending is government waste, rarely do those receiving the benefits complain. So what is the problem with this practice?

One example, this process puts the elected official in the position of asking for funds for groups that donate to their campaign organizations. In essence, the pork barrel spending benefits those that contribute to a politician for their financial support. This practice is certainly a conflict of interest that can corrupt the political process.

Another example is the thought process that goes into this type of spending. "If the money is not spent on my projects it will get spent elsewhere," creates an attitude that encourages more spending. The pattern of, "If I don't, he will" spending does nothing to stop the widespread scorn of the American public.

In 2002, Director Daniels of the Office of Management and Budget encouraged members of Congress to adopt some measure of fiscal responsibility. A letter dated Feb 6, 2002 from House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young responded to this request by stating, "The power of the purse resides solely with Congress. Unless the Constitution is amended, Congress will continue to exercise its discretion over federal funds for the purpose we deem appropriate."

In essence, what Chairman Young was saying is the Constitution does not state that money collected through taxes needs to be spent wisely on useful things in the national interest. In short, Congress has the right, protected by the Constitution to fund pet projects.

As a result, this wasteful pork barrel spending continues with no end in sight. There isn't a difference between political parties as we have seen with the previous Republican administration and now Democrat. It is apparent that members of both are willing to spend tax dollars on worthless and unnecessary projects.

So what is the answer? The electorate needs to take on the responsibility of highlighting the abuses of elected officials. By doing so may generate a strong grassroots opposition to the pork barrel waste. Enough voices could embarrass representatives into forgoing their pet activity. If not, then voters need to use the power of the ballot box to promote change.

Learn more about this author, Mark G. Sullivan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.