For the unintiated porkbarrel spending or earmarks in more PC language was a practice with long-standing in US politics for certain monies to be earmarked for a specific usually very local purpose which is attached to a major bill on some major subject with no relation to the earmark. In effect the congressman or politician traded his support for some general measure in exchange a road, hospital, 9 lane bowling alley etc... being built with federal money.
The practice was outlawed quite recently (2011) by an ad-hoc coalition where GOP and progressives joined forces. What with Trump's announcement to 'DRAIN THE SWAMP' it had not occurred to me for 1mn that anyone might think to bring it back. But not only has this been proposes here is an article in the Washington Post that vehemently defends Porkbarrel spending as an essential part of democracy.
LINK TO ARTICLE
The article made my eyes pop - someone backed up by several other people arguing that this institutionalised form of corruption is a good thing. The basic argument seems to be - it was never that expensive, local politicians are supposed to bring home the bacon and they know far better than government agencies what monies need to be spent on what back home. From my side I basically see opportunistic, greedy, clientelistic politicians greasing the palms of their supporters through blackmail at the expense of the common purse. But I guess I am a moderate in my views.
So what does the RSP community think - pork-barrel spending - excuse me earmarks - bring em back or send em to oblivion?