I can remember a time, somewhere around the mid-2000s, when the political discussion about the U.S. government’s legislative process centered around spending that was deemed superfluous. Earmarks added to bills. Pork barrel* projects, fat that needed trimming. Democrats and Republicans traded barbs about how egregious and unnecessary certain multimillion-dollar projects were, from the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere to the Boston Big Dig. The dangling of projects as political favors got so out of hand that when the Tea Party Movement rose to power buoyed by a platform of government austerity, the practice was completely banned in 2010. Fast forward to the present, seemingly permanent gridlock that followed, and I feel a longing for the simpler times when politicians could be persuaded with a little extra funding to projects in their districts. Unless a supermajority exists to push through popular agenda items like tax cuts and COVID stimulus, we end up with heavily kneecapped versions of healthcare reform, infrastructure, and a pile of other bills that don’t even meet the threshold for Senate debate.
One bill recently caught my attention for its tasty, pork-like quality: a bipartisan bill called the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act aimed at funding scientific agencies and grant programs. At a time when the importance of science is often overlooked or even excoriated, this bill will allocate $52B to the semiconductor industry (with an additional $24B in tax credits to stimulate investment in production capacity) and tag about $100B for distribution by the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy. The tradeoff in the bill, to gain support from some small-state Republicans, is the inclusion of language that directly demands that NSF and DoE funding be distributed to under-resourced states and municipalities. The bill’s ‘rider’ provisions stayed true to the mission to boost competitiveness in tech manufacturing sectors, and it makes sense to have all hands on deck.
Considering the fractious moment in American politics and international relations, I’m happy that pork-filled negotiations may be making a comeback. I was firmly against this form of spending a decade ago, but if it’s the only way for our representatives from both political parties to find common ground, I’m 100% on board with it. I don’t care if some of the money goes to an underequipped lab that fails to make a single advance, especially if there’s a chance that a successful enterprise spins up in a place like North Dakota or South Carolina. I would encourage similar approaches to a compromise on bills to address veterans exposed to burn pits, energy policy to lessen climate change, the high cost of prescription drugs, and more. These bills might carry some waste or inefficiency, but the cost of doing nothing can be far, far greater.
*Footnote: Interestingly, like many other political buzzwords, the term “pork barrel” hearkens from the era of slavery. As early as 1700, salted pork preserved in barrels was handed out to placate slaves, a cheap motivation tool for suppressing the desire to revolt. It is slightly ironic that Tea Party conservatives rejuvenated this term as part of their campaign against the Obama-era Democratic leadership, likening their moderate tax-and-spend increases to enslavement.
Worldly Observations 