Earmarks, pork barrel projects and logrolling | US government and civics | Khan Academy

Summary

This video delves into the US Congress's budget process, highlighting the Appropriations Committees' pivotal role in allocating federal funds. It traces the budget's growth from under $1 trillion to nearly $4 trillion and dissects spending areas, emphasizing the rise of mandatory spending like Social Security and Medicare. The video also explores earmarks, or 'pork barrel' projects, questioning their necessity and impact on the budget. It discusses the political controversy around earmarks, their peak in 2006, and the subsequent decline due to public and political pressure. The narrative concludes by pondering the value of earmarks in facilitating legislative processes, challenging viewers to consider their merits.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The primary role of the US Congress in the budget process is to pass a budget for the Executive Branch to allocate funds.
• 💵 The federal budget has grown significantly, from under $1 trillion in the early 1980s to approaching $4 trillion.
• 📈 Mandatory spending, including Social Security and Medicare, now accounts for nearly two-thirds of the federal budget.
• 💼 The Appropriations Committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate are the most influential in deciding federal spending.
• 🏦 Interest on the national debt is another significant portion of the budget that the government is obligated to pay.
• 🛑 Discretionary spending includes national defense and other non-mandatory areas, which the Appropriations Committees decide on.
• 🔑 Earmarks are specific budget allocations for particular projects and are sometimes considered pork barrel projects.
• 🚧 Earmark spending peaked in 2006 at $29 billion but declined significantly after 2011 due to political controversy.
• 📊 Earmarks, despite media attention, typically represent less than 1% of the total federal budget.
• 🤝 Logrolling is a legislative practice where politicians support each other's bills or bill components to advance their interests.
• 🤔 The debate over earmarks includes arguments for their utility in streamlining legislation and concerns about their potential for waste.

Q & A

What is one of the major functions of the United States Congress?

One of the major functions of the United States Congress is to pass a budget for the Executive Branch to decide how much money it has to use to function.

Which committees are most powerful when it comes to the budget in the US Congress?

The Appropriations Committees in the House of Representatives and in the Senate are the most powerful when it comes to the budget.

How has the federal budget changed from the early 1980s to the present?

The federal budget has increased from a little under $1 trillion to approaching $4 trillion from the early 1980s to the present.

What is considered mandatory spending in the federal budget?

Mandatory spending includes Social Security and Medicare, which are obligations by law and have grown to almost two-thirds of the federal budget.

What is the role of the Appropriations Committees in deciding the federal budget?

The Appropriations Committees decide how much money goes to various departments and programs in the federal government.

What is the term for setting aside parts of the budget for specific projects?

The term for setting aside parts of the budget for specific projects is called 'earmarks'.

What are some examples of earmarks from the Highway Bill passed in 2005?

Examples of earmarks from the 2005 Highway Bill include a project for safe access to streets for bicyclists and pedestrians in California with a budget of $400,000, and the renovation and expansion of the National Packard Museum for nearly $3 million.

Why are some earmarks referred to as pork barrel projects?

Some earmarks are referred to as pork barrel projects because they are seen as wasteful or used more as a political tool rather than serving the federal government's actual concerns.

What happened to earmark spending after 2006?

After 2006, earmark spending became a significant political issue, leading to both the Senate and the House of Representatives passing resolutions to end earmark spending by the end of 2010.

How significant is earmark spending in the context of the total federal budget?

Earmark spending, even at its peak, represents well under 1% of the federal budget, which is significant but relatively small in comparison to the total budget.

What is the argument for earmarks being a good thing?

The argument for earmarks being a good thing is that they allow Congresspeople to set aside funding for projects in their district, which can help pass bills and streamline the political process, costing less than 1% of the budget.

What is the term used to describe the practice of supporting each other's bills or parts of bills in the legislative process?

The term used to describe the practice of supporting each other's bills or parts of bills in the legislative process is 'logrolling'.

Outlines

00:00

💼 Budget Process in US Congress

This paragraph discusses the budget process in the US Congress, emphasizing the role of Congress in passing a budget for the Executive Branch. It highlights the Appropriations Committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate as the most influential in deciding federal spending. The paragraph provides a historical overview of the federal budget's growth from under $1 trillion to approaching $4 trillion. It breaks down the budget into mandatory spending, such as Social Security and Medicare, which now constitute nearly two-thirds of the budget, and discretionary spending, which includes national defense and other priorities determined by the Appropriations Committees. The concept of earmarks, or setting aside budget portions for specific projects, is introduced, with examples from the 2005 Highway Bill. Earmarks are sometimes criticized as pork barrel projects, seen as wasteful or politically motivated expenditures.

05:01

📈 Earmark Spending and Its Impact

The second paragraph delves into the history and controversy surrounding earmark spending. It presents a chart showing a steady increase in earmark spending from 1991 to a peak of $29 billion in 2006, followed by a significant drop in 2011 due to political backlash against such spending. The paragraph discusses the public and political perception of earmarks as symbols of government waste, exemplified by the 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska. Despite the controversy, the paragraph points out that earmarks represent less than 1% of the federal budget, questioning their actual impact. It also presents arguments in favor of earmarks, suggesting they facilitate the passage of legislation and are a minor cost in the broader context of the budget. The concept of logrolling is introduced as a mechanism to streamline the legislative process, where politicians support each other's projects or bills to achieve mutual benefits.

Keywords

💡Budget Process

The budget process refers to the systematic approach by which a government formulates its budget, which is a financial plan that outlines government's revenues and expenditures. In the context of the video, the budget process in the US Congress is highlighted as one of its major functions, emphasizing its role in deciding the financial allocation for the Executive Branch.

💡Appropriations Committees

These are congressional committees responsible for appropriating (allocating) funds to government departments and agencies. The video notes their significance in deciding the distribution of federal budget among various departments and programs, illustrating their power in the budget process.

💡Federal Budget

The federal budget is the government's financial plan, detailing proposed or actual revenues and expenditures. The video uses the federal budget's growth from under $1 trillion to approaching $4 trillion to demonstrate the scale and evolution of government spending.

💡Mandatory Spending

Mandatory spending refers to government expenditures that are legally required, such as Social Security and Medicare. The video points out that mandatory spending has grown to nearly two-thirds of the federal budget, emphasizing its impact on the budget's composition.

💡Discretionary Spending

Discretionary spending is funding allocated by the government that is not legally required, such as defense spending. The video explains that discretionary spending is subject to the decisions of the Appropriations Committees, highlighting the political nature of budget allocation.

💡Earmarks

Earmarks are provisions in legislation that specify amounts of money to be allocated for particular purposes or projects. The video uses examples from the Highway Bill to illustrate how earmarks can be seen as pork barrel projects, sparking debates about government waste.

💡Pork Barrel Projects

Pork barrel projects are government spending projects that are funded for local benefits, often seen as unnecessary or wasteful. The video discusses how earmarks are sometimes referred to as pork barrel projects, questioning their value and necessity.

💡Logrolling

Logrolling in politics refers to the practice of legislators trading votes on legislation to secure support for their own interests. The video mentions logrolling as a means to streamline the legislative process, suggesting it can facilitate the passing of important legislation.

💡Citizens Against Government Waste

Citizens Against Government Waste is a non-profit organization that tracks and reports on government spending. The video cites their data on earmark spending to demonstrate the fluctuating trends and political impact of earmarks over time.

💡Executive Branch

The Executive Branch is one of the three branches of the US federal government, responsible for enforcing laws and administering government programs. The video discusses the role of the Executive Branch in deciding how to execute on the budget set by Congress.

💡Bipartisan

Bipartisan refers to cooperation or agreement between two major political parties. The video suggests that earmarks might contribute to bipartisanship by allowing legislators from different parties to support each other's projects, thus facilitating the passage of legislation.

Highlights

The United States Congress has a major function of passing a budget for the Executive Branch.

The Appropriations Committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate are the most powerful in deciding federal spending.

The federal budget has grown from under $1 trillion in the early 80s to approaching $4 trillion.

Mandatory spending, such as Social Security and Medicare, now accounts for almost two-thirds of the federal budget.

The net interest on the national debt is another obligated expenditure in the budget.

Discretionary spending includes national defense and other non-mandatory budget items.

Congress can set aside portions of the budget for specific projects known as earmarks.

Earmarks can be seen as pork barrel projects, which are often considered wasteful or politically motivated.

Earmark spending peaked at $29 billion in 2006 but dropped significantly after 2011 due to political controversy.

Earmarks represent less than 1% of the federal budget, despite media attention suggesting otherwise.

Some argue that earmarks are beneficial for streamlining the political process and passing legislation.

Earmarks are not additional spending but rather a decision on where to allocate budgeted funds.

The term 'logrolling' refers to the practice of legislators supporting each other's bills or bill parts to achieve mutual benefits.

Logrolling can streamline the legislative process and potentially make it more bipartisan.

The video challenges viewers to consider whether earmarks are good or bad for the budget process.

The size of the federal budget and its allocation are key takeaways from the video.

Transcripts

- [Instructor] What we're going to do in this video

is focus on the budget process in the US Congress.

And just as a reminder, that's one of the major functions

of the United States Congress is to pass a budget

for the Executive Branch to decide how much money

the Executive Branch has to use to actually function.

And when it comes to the budget,

the two most powerful committees are

the Appropriations Committees

in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

They get to decide how much money goes

to various departments and programs

in the federal government.

Just for context, let's get a broad view of what

the federal budget looks like

and how it has changed over time.

So over here you see the trend from the early 80s

all the way until projected a few years into the future

at the time of this video being created.

And you can see the absolute level of the federal budget

has gone from a little under $1 trillion

and it is now approaching $4 trillion.

And this view of the breakdown of the various spending areas

gives us a better sense of some trends.

As we mentioned in other videos, there's a significant chunk

of mandatory spending.

Mandatory spending are things that by law

we have already obligated ourselves to.

And the big ones here are Social Security and Medicare

and you can see that they have gone collectively

from a little over 20% of the federal budget

to now approaching almost 2/3 of the federal budget.

Now another chunk of this budget that we are obligated

to pay is the net interest on our national debt.

We are borrowers as a country

and so we need to pay interest.

Now everything else here you can consider

to be discretionary.

That would be this national defense piece

right here in purple and then everything

above this net interest piece.

And that's what the Appropriations Committees are going

to decide on, where to spend that money.

How much does national defense get and how much

do these other priorities for the country get?

Now generally speaking, the amount of money allocated

to various programs and various departments,

how it is spent tends to be decided by the Executive Branch.

Congress's job is to set the budget

but that is not always the case.

Congress can also set aside portions of this budget

for specific projects.

And the setting aside of parts of the budget

for specific projects is known as earmarks.

And to make things tangible, here are some examples

of earmarks from the Highway Bill that was passed in 2005.

And as you can see, it just lists a bunch

of special projects and this goes on for tens

and sometimes hundreds of pages.

So here in California, there's a project to construct

safe access to streets for bicyclists and pedestrians

including crosswalks, sidewalks,

and traffic calming measures

in Covena, California, $400,000.

If we go down here to number five, renovate and expand

National Packard Museum and adjacent historic

Packard facilities, and that is almost $3 million.

And so one thing that's probably crossing your mind

is hey, this is a national highway bill and you have

these little projects that seem very, very, very local.

And these earmarks here, these set asides,

because they feel sometimes wasteful or they're being used

more as a political tool versus something

that the federal government should actually worry about,

sometimes these types of earmarks are referred to

as pork barrel projects,

pork barrel projects.

And the reason why I introduced both words are earmarks

are just a general thing.

You can decide whether they're good or bad.

Many of those earmarks that I listed, even though they are

for specific projects in specific locations,

they seemed at least related to the Highway Bill,

but it would be very reasonable for some folks to say

why is Congress in the business

of funding these specific projects?

Isn't it their job to just set the budget

to figure out how much the Department of Transportation

gets and then let them, as part of the Executive Branch,

decide how to execute on improving

the national highway system or our transportation system?

And so they would argue that that is pork,

that those are pork barrel projects,

that those are government waste.

Now to get a sense of how significant earmarks

and debatably pork barrel have been in the past,

we have this chart from Citizens Against Government Waste

and it shows earmark spending from 1991 to 2016.

And you will immediately notice some things.

Going from 1991 all the way until about 2006,

you have this steady upward trend in earmark spending

all the way to the peak in 2006

of $29 billion of earmarks.

But then something interesting happens.

In 2011, it looks like it gets pretty close to zero

and then it starts trending up from there,

but it's much lower that it was before

and that's because as we get into this period after 2006,

earmark spending became a very big political issue.

Some of these projects, there was famously an earmark

for a bridge to an island in Alaska that was going

to cost several hundreds of millions of dollars.

It was later canceled but it got a lot of press

and a lot of politicians started to make it their mission

to do away with earmark spending.

Some of these pork barrel projects were easy

to get people worked up about,

and say, hey look, this is a sign of government waste.

And so in the end of 2010, both the Senate

and the House of Representatives passed resolutions

to end earmark spending, although you can see

that it still exists in some way, at least according

to the Citizens Against Government Waste.

Now at first, this seems very good because $29 billion

on things like museums or maybe bridges that go to islands

that very few people live on does not seem

like a good idea.

It seems like classic examples of government waste.

But it's also important to keep it in context.

Remember the federal budget is approach $4 trillion.

So even in 2006, when the federal budget was a little

under $3 trillion, this was only about 1%

of the federal budget.

And so even though earmarks, which often get called

pork barrel projects, became a lightning rod

for a lot of media attention

because they seemed so wasteful,

in most years, they represent well under 1%

of the federal budget.

And there are folks who would even argue that earmarks

are a good thing by essentially allowing Congresspeople

to set aside an earmark for something in their district.

It makes it easier for bills to get passed

and it's only costing us less than 1% to do it,

and it's only something that's streamlining

the political process.

Other arguments they make is these earmarks aren't spending

above and beyond the regular budget.

If they do not set aside this money for these projects

in these various districts or in these various states,

well, then the Executive Branch is just going to decide

on how to use that money.

And ideally the Executive Branch would open these things

up for bid, these would be competitive processes,

but there's examples of the Executive Branch

also favoring certain regions or certain projects.

So the budget could arguably be the same

whether or not there are those earmarks.

It's really a question of whether it is Congress

that is deciding where these special projects go

or whether it is the Executive Branch.

Now another term that you might often hear

with the legislative process, something

that helps streamline it, is the germ logrolling.

Now logrolling can apply to a lot of things,

not just in terms of where you spend money.

Logrolling is just the idea that let's say that I am

Congressperson A and you are Congressperson B,

and I really like this bill right over here.

I like bill number one and you like bill number two,

and I agree to support you, if you agree to support me.

Here I describe logrolling where we support

each others bills but we could even have logrolling

where we support each others parts of bills.

For example, I'll support your transportation museum

in your state, if you support my bicycle path in my state.

So I'll leave you there.

The big takeaways here are to appreciate the size

of the federal budget, where it gets spent,

and some of the processes used to help pass

that federal budget.

We also talked about earmarks which sometimes get called

pork barrel projects.

And it's interesting for you to think about

after this video, are they good or are they bad?

At first, especially when you look at the media attention,

they seem clearly bad, they seem wasteful.

But when you think about that they're less than 1%

of the budget, and they might help streamline the passing

of other important legislation, maybe making it even

more bipartisan, who knows, some would argue

that they might not be as bad as people first believed.

You decide.