Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Keep CounterPunch ad free. Support our annual fund drive today!

House of Pork


I has been great sport watching Congress pretend to reform itself over the “earmarks” (pork) it adds to spending bills. Riding into power on a wave of promised reform, the Democrats imposed new rules that changed almost nothing, and since then, they have gone to considerable lengths to get around their own rules, feeble as they are. The Republicans, whose past accomplishment was to increase pork to unprecedented levels, now gleefully ape reform by badgering the Democrats into observing their own rules.

Promising “the most ethical Congress ever,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) chose to deliver by requiring spending bills to list and explain earmarks. The new system flunked on its first try. In the House Appropriations Committee’s initial spending bill — legislation to finish the Republicans’ undone work for the previous fiscal year — new Chairman David Obey (Wis.) relieved his colleagues of the trouble of describing their own earmarks by pretending there were none in the bill. Actually, there were over $200 million of them. In the next appropriations bill, to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obey again asserted there were no earmarks; this time there were even more.

On his third try, Obey took a new tack: When the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, H.R. 2643, was reported by his committee, it truly had no earmarks. Obey explained that they would be inserted into the bill only in its final stages, after the House and Senate had passed their versions, and it was to be sent back to both bodies for final approval. Thus, only when the bill was virtually on its way to the White House would Obey permit the press and quarrelsome members of Congress to see what earmarks the Democratic majority had chosen.

The Republicans had a field day. Feigning passion for the original Pelosi reforms, and with all the sincerity of a professional wrestler, House Republican leader John A. Boehner (Ohio), imposed legislative gridlock on the Homeland Security bill with piles of Republican amendments and motions to accomplish noble ends, such as changing the grammar in the bill. Once it became clear that the Republicans could do to the Democrats what the Democrats had done to the Republicans in the previous Congress — hogtie most spending bills to embarrass the party in control — Obey caved. He agreed to go back to the original plan: to list and explain earmarks in bills — sort of.

Just how open and honest the reformed process is can be seen in the new Department of Defense authorization bill that came out of the House Armed Services Committee in May. It did list 449 earmarks — in small, unreadable print — costing $7.6 billion, but the list was incomplete. An astute watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, found 53 additional, unlisted earmarks costing $744 million.

When the Senate Armed Services Committee reported out its different version of the bill, S. 1547, it listed 309 earmarks costing $5.6 billion. When it comes up for debate in the Senate, 200 or more amendments will be introduced. About half of those amendments will be for home-state projects that for some reason the committee did not add during its initial review process.

During the week or two the Senate will take to consider the bill, there will be debates, some of them interesting, on the great issues of the day: the war in Iraq, nuclear nonproliferation, the worn-out U.S. Army and more. Interspersed through those debates will be strange presentations by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (Mich.) and the ranking Republican, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). They will be reading off procedural motions, calling up amendments and passing them by “unanimous consent”; they will do this time after time, sometimes passing as many as 20 amendments in one sequence. The amendments will not be debated; they may not even be described.

There’s a reason why these items will receive such little scrutiny: They are the pork amendments. The senators pressing them will have “cleared” them with Levin and McCain. Then the amendments will go through the arcane but well-oiled approval process, with utterly no debate — all in what calls itself the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”

This year, there may be some new twists, none of them having the slightest thing to do with the Democrats’ reforms. First, it should be fun to watch McCain, the presidential candidate and self-described “pork buster,” integrate himself openly into the pork approval process. To avoid painfully obvious hypocrisy, he will surely absent himself, likely conveniently out of town on the campaign trail, and will ask a colleague to stand in for him.

Still, while McCain in past years has done nothing to impede pork in Armed Services Committee bills, this year he may have an irresistible urge to take action. It turns out that one of the top porkers in the committee’s bill is none other than a Democratic presidential rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). Last year, she jammed 26 earmarks into the bill, costing $47.8 million. Will McCain call out Clinton on her pork, seeking debate and votes? It will be fascinating to watch. If McCain fails to act, it will tell us as much about his character as it would if he does.

There may yet be some interventions in the congressional pork fest. In the recent past, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has challenged some of the more egregious pork in spending bills. In the Defense authorization bill, he will have a target-rich environment. He may be one of the few senators — or perhaps the only one — to oppose any earmarks. However, he does this only intermittently, and his actions are unlikely to be comprehensive.

McCain or Coburn or any other challenger will almost certainly lose if the matter comes to a vote. Pork is a bipartisan enterprise, and any threat to any member’s pork is a threat to all. The Senate’s porkers — the vast majority of both parties — will surely band together to beat back any threat, as they have many times in the past.

The Democrats’ pork reforms are about as helpful as changing the light bulbs in a bordello. Seen in isolation, the action may seem rational, even needed, but in the larger scheme of things, the illumination does nothing to change the business going on.

WINSLOW T. WHEELER is the Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information and author of The Wastrels of Defense. Over 31 years, he worked for US Senators from both political parties and the Government Accountability Office on national security issues.

This article originally appeared in the June 26 issue of Politico.




Winslow T. Wheeler is the Director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight.  He spent 31 years working for the Government Accountability Office and both Republican and Democratic Senators on national security issues.

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine


October 24, 2016
John Steppling
The Unwoke: Sleepwalking into the Nightmare
Oscar Ortega
Clinton’s Troubling Silence on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Patrick Cockburn
Aleppo vs. Mosul: Media Biases
John Grant
Humanizing Our Militarized Border
Franklin Lamb
US-led Sanctions Targeting Syria Risk Adjudication as War Crimes
Paul Bentley
There Must Be Some Way Out of Here: the Silence of Dylan
Norman Pollack
Militarism: The Elephant in the Room
Patrick Bosold
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline: Invite CEO to Lunch, Go to Jail
Paul Craig Roberts
Was Russia’s Hesitation in Syria a Strategic Mistake?
Lara Gardner
Why I’m Not Voting
David Swanson
Of All the Opinions I’ve Heard on Syria
Weekend Edition
October 21, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Wight
Hillary Clinton and the Brutal Murder of Gaddafi
Diana Johnstone
Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition in a Nutshell
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Trump’s Naked and Hillary’s Dead
John W. Whitehead
American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up to a Terrifying Election Season
Stephen Cooper
Hell on Earth in Alabama: Inside Holman Prison
Patrick Cockburn
13 Years of War: Mosul’s Frightening and Uncertain Future
Rob Urie
Name the Dangerous Candidate
Pepe Escobar
The Aleppo / Mosul Riddle
David Rosen
The War on Drugs is a Racket
Sami Siegelbaum
Once More, the Value of the Humanities
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
Neve Gordon
Israel’s Boycott Hypocrisy
Mark Hand
Of Pipelines and Protest Pens: When the Press Loses Its Shield
Victor Wallis
On the Stealing of U.S. Elections
Michael Hudson
The Return of the Repressed Critique of Rentiers: Veblen in the 21st century Rentier Capitalism
Brian Cloughley
Drumbeats of Anti-Russia Confrontation From Washington to London
Howard Lisnoff
Still Licking Our Wounds and Hoping for Change
Brian Gruber
Iraq: There Is No State
Peter Lee
Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism
Stanley L. Cohen
Equality and Justice for All, It Seems, But Palestinians
Steve Early
In Bay Area Refinery Town: Berniecrats & Clintonites Clash Over Rent Control
Kristine Mattis
All Solutions are Inadequate: Why It Doesn’t Matter If Politicians Mention Climate Change
Peter Linebaugh
Ron Suny and the Marxist Commune: a Note
Andre Vltchek
Sudan, Africa and the Mosaic of Horrors
Keith Binkly
The Russians Have Been Hacking Us For Years, Why Is It a Crisis Now?
Jonathan Cook
Adam Curtis: Another Manager of Perceptions
Ted Dace
The Fall
Sheldon Richman
Come and See the Anarchy Inherent in the System
Susana Hurlich
Hurricane Matthew: an Overview of the Damages in Cuba
Dave Lindorff
Screwing With and Screwing the Elderly and Disabled
Chandra Muzaffar
Cuba: Rejecting Sanctions, Sending a Message
Dennis Kucinich
War or Peace?
Joseph Natoli
Seething Anger in the Post-2016 Election Season
Jack Rasmus
Behind The 3rd US Presidential Debate—What’s Coming in 2017