I never could imagine a Jewish kid from New York researching and writing about “pork.” It just doesn’t seem kosher. But political practice and current news has taken pork out of the hidden rooms of government and placed it in the headlines to be consumed at the kitchen table. And the type of “pork” we’re writing about is no more palatable to the American public than the meat is to one who observes kosher laws.

Pork: 1) noun - the flesh of a swine or pig when dressed for food. 2) noun - A government project or appropriation that yields jobs or and/or benefits to a specific locale and patronage and other opportunities to its political representative.

Historically, pork played such an important role in rural America in the 1800s that it became a synonym for wealth. Later it developed a political meaning of wealth from political graft or corruption.

The “Pork Barrel” was simply a barrel filled with pork common in 19th century American kitchens.

James Fennimore Cooper, in the “Chainbearer,” described what he called American poverty as it existed in early America: “As for bread,” said the mother, “I count that for nothing. We always have bread and potatoes enough; but I hold a family to be in a desperate way when the mother can see the bottom of the pork-barrel.

It wasn’t much of a leap from there to “pork barrel” as an adjective for legislation or government funding which aimed to benefit a politician’s own constituents and used to help win elections or gain other advantages.

Welcome to America in the 21st Century. Years of political insensitivity and self-serving politics has made distribution of pork the manna of elected officials. And governments in every state and at every level are tempted by increasing budgets and the desire to assure their standing with voters.

Sadly, the dispensing of so much pork has convinced far too many elected officials that they too deserve to belly up to the table. And in New York State and in the nation, we have seen public servants caught with their hands in the “pork barrel.”

When there is so much pork around, who is going to miss a few pieces?

Brian McLaughlin, former Assembly member from Queens was the indicted last year for believing dispensing the people’s pork, made it his own. He allegedly stole the funds from his member item giving bats and balls to the kids of the Electchester Athletic Association. That was just a small part of McLaughlin’s alleged malfeasance.

Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno is under Federal investigation which is examining his use of member items.

In the State and City, they call them “member items.” In Congress, they call them “earmarks.”

And in most cases in recent years, the legislative body has tried to hide these member funded goodies.

The lack of transparency has prevented the people and journalists from understanding just how political and corrupt the process of funding was. Party loyalty, allegiance to leadership and trading of votes earned members of legislative bodies huge dollar grants to dispense at their discretion. The quality of the expenditure or the good of the people were not necessarily key to the decision process.

Since the process was not transparent, the members not only played, they often sold their souls and the dollars wasted increased.

But the times they are a changin’. In New York State, a recent court decision has required the NYS legislature to open its books and reveal all member items. At the same time, the Spitzer new government broom is fostering an air of transparency. And this week, new Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced he will scrutinize member items of the NYS Legislature to ascertain that expenditures of the people’s money have “legitimate public purposes.”

I tried to quantify how much money was spent through “member items or “earmarks” last year. One member of Congress trying to help quantify waste said, “If you mean how much for ‘frivolous’ projects, Who knows? And what’s frivolous? The real problem is that much of the earmarks are anonymous. What we Democrats want to do, is to identify the representative who put it in, have her/him sign that he has no vested interest. These bills are VOLUMINOUS, and sometimes I suspect that committee staff sneaks things in. If you do away completely with earmarks you could add these projects by amendment, which means thousands of them. The real solution is transparency and an alert press.”

And that’s just what the new Democratic House of Representatives did last week. In one of its first official acts under Democratic control, the House voted 280-152 (48 Republicans joined the Dems) to curb the middle-of-the-night, backroom approval of pork barrel projects. The new rules prohibit lawmakers from trading their votes for special spending projects tacked on to legislation, and requires members to certify that they have no personal financial stake in their requests. The Senate will consider similar rules next week.

How big has the problem been? We’ve calculated the member items or earmarks by legislative body then calculated the per household cost using the latest information available to us.
---------------------------------------------------
2006 Legislators spending our money
Member expenditures Per hshld

US....$68,000,000,000..$612
NYS..$200,000,000.....$28
NYC..$50,000,000........$17
-----------------------------------------------
In the Congress, they’re earmarks, here they’re member items, and a great deal of it, pork. While some are worthwhile, a diligent press and public and a willingness to challenge your elected official is the best solution to the problem.

Remember, the money they are spending comes from tax dollars.

Watch them, like it’s your money.

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.