They won't. And despite the pledge of reform from President-elect Obama and others, rehabilitating the institutional practices of members of the U.S. Congress will require a monumental, sustained effort.

The Roots of the Practice of Earmarks
Earmarks are symbolic of the way Congress operates in recent times. (See Parts I and II.) An earmark (pork project) is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures. In fiscal 2008, men and women in Congress quietly inserted and jointly approved over 11,000 projects costing taxpayers $17.2 billion.

There are four basic reasons why pork may remain the signature dish on the Congressional menu:
#1. Seniors Rule Congress.
Congress has over 200 committees and subcommittees that do much of the work. No legislation goes far without a committee endorsement. The heads of committees are appointed primarily on the basis of seniority, and they wield enormous power. While companies and organizations of every kind across the USA put age limits on their leaders—directors, executives, mayors—Congress does not. Here is a sampling of today’s Congressional leaders.
• Senator Robert Byrd, age 90, is the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee that controls over $1 trillion in federal agencies’ budgets. He has just decided to retire (November 2008). He is a legend in his own state of West Virginia where he directed HUGE sums of federal largesse for decades. He will be replaced by…
• Senator Daniel Inouye, age 84, of Hawaii, who, like Byrd, is famous for shipping federal money from the other 49 states to Hawaii.
• Senator Mitch McConnell, age 66, is the Senate Republican Leader and a savvy veteran of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He almost single-handedly “showered federal money on towns, airports, and universities in Kentucky, e.g., the $60 million he won for the face-lift of downtown Owensboro, KY, which features a McConnell Plaza winding along the Ohio River waterfront."
• Representative John Murtha, age 76, is the ninth most senior member of the 435 members of the U.S. House, and, as mentioned in Part II of this series, he is the acknowledged “master of pork and broker of vote trades.”
• Senator Ted Stevens, age 85, was the Senior Senator from Alaska for years, and he was almost the first felon to be elected to the U.S. Senate, on November 4th. He was found guilty of seven counts of taking lobbyists' money on October 27. By a whisker, Stevens lost his re-election bid to yet another term in the Senate.


Following is a short report by the Center for Responsive Politics about two of the senior members of Congress:
"November 2008: Representative Henry Waxman's seizure of the chairmanship of the House Energy & Commerce Committee illustrates how members of Congress strategically dole out money from their leadership PAC (Political Action Committee) funds in order to rise through the ranks—that is, when they're not spending the money on luxury travel and meals at fine D.C. restaurants.

"Between Waxman's PAC and candidate committee, the California congressman gave $51,000 to newly elected Democrats, who got to vote on his chairmanship. The man Waxman defeated for the gavel, Michigan Representative John Dingell, gave away $34,000. Dingell also co-hosted a fundraiser this week, complete with a cadre of invited lobbyists present, to help incoming Democrats pay off their recent campaign debts."

CNN reported that each lobbyist was given a “dance card” on which he or she could indicate which newly elected Democrat(s) they would 'help.' ”

#2. No Presidential Line-Item Veto.
This means that the President of the U.S., who is elected by all the people, cannot nullify or cancel specific provisions in a bill passed by Congress, such as a budget appropriation bill. The President can veto the entire bill, but he or she cannot eliminate certain elements, e.g., earmarks. The governors of all but seven of the fifty United States have some form of line-item veto.

A constitutional amendment to give the President line-item veto power has been considered periodically, most recently in the mid-1990s. The odds of such an amendment becoming law (through Congress) seem very long, indeed. Why would Congress support such an effort to remove a handy tool from its toolkit?

#3. Public Apathy.
Members of Congress are elected (and re-elected, e.g., Murtha, McConnell) locally, and even though they take an oath of office to serve the nation, some—not all—seem to serve the nation third after themselves and the local constituency that elects them. And since Congress makes the laws AND spends the money it raises via taxation, the public has only a limited power to intervene on any direct basis. (This is less true in the states that allow direct referendum initiatives by the voters.)

Since WWII, the federal government has become very big and very complicated. It is difficult for "the public" to comprehend it let alone do anything about.

And as far as pork goes, individuals only see the pork they receive from the other 49 states not how much pork for others their individual tax dollars actually buy. Some states are big net gainers—e.g., Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, West Virginia. Therefore, other states are net losers.



#4. All the Incentives in Congress are aimed at Getting Re-elected.
Members of Congress who get along and go along are assisted by their colleagues to “stay in the game,” as NFL coach Mike Ditka would say. And it’s a pretty comfortable place to be. Congressional salaries, at $170,000/year, are super and dependable. The perks with the 435 positions, at up to $25,000 or more/year, are extra-super. A vested retirement (pay and benefits) for life after five years (it takes 20 years in the military) is really special.

Mini-celebrity hood also goes with each congressional seat. Every elected official has some voter following, gets his or her name and picture in the news, and receives warm calls and big hellos from dozens or more of the 15,000 registered lobbyists whose business is schmoozing and gathering congressional votes for their employers.

And finally, there is a warm surge of power that members of Congress feel when they make laws in big rooms, spend money from the taxpayer-funded, national, bank account, and bestow benevolences (earmarks/pork) on supplicants.

As a tiny illustration of the magnetic nature of the power members of congress seek and enjoy, this author was present a few years ago at an evening, public gathering in a church for a junior member of the U.S. House. He was a personable guy, and he spoke for 15 minutes after which he took questions. Following the meeting, many members of the audience, your author included, surged forward like moths to a candle flame. Everyone wanted to be close and perhaps hear an utterance or touch the robes (figuratively speaking) of the symbol of great power. It was an amazing experience that had nothing to do with the representative's performance or service to the people. He had actually gone to Washington to change it; but he came home after a year in office, a changed man. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So said Lord Acton, British historian, 1887.


In summary, earmarks/pork constitute less than 20% of the total U.S. Budget. But they are the product of a non-transparent system of favors and deals and insider trading and self-dealing. The insidious system poisons the whole process of government of the people, by the people, for the people.

But it’s going take a lot to change business as usual.



Author's Notes: Not all members of Congress participate in earmarks; not all earmarks are "bad;" but the idea and process of quasi-secret earmarks—an extension of power—is both contagious and dangerous to the republic.

The term "pork" originated in the 1800s when a pork barrel often was used to store food, e.g., salted pork. The notion behind the term's derogatory use in politics, starting in the 1800s, was that office seekers sometimes provided voters with "food" of some kind in return for votes.

Editor's Note: Steve Brandt is Senior Lecturer in Management, Emeritus at the Stanford Graduate School of Business where he was a faculty member for 21 years.

For other articles in this series of three on the U.S. Congress, or for three recent, explanatory articles on the present Economic Quagmire in the USA and abroad, click on Tahoetopia's Other Stories.