The issue of pork barrel politics, or as it is more formally known, earmarking has been a conflict at the forefront of discussions policies for most of the most contemporary legislative issues. Earmarking refers to the allocation of government funds and resources provided by Congress for grants, projects, or programs to specific districts within states (Earmarks, 2011). Special funds may be set aside for different projects in a given district, such as the construction of a new bridge or highway, grants for small businesses, or some sort of locally run government office. Many members of Congress have varying opinions on the necessity and real benefits of this pork spending on the economy. While some would say the earmark is a useful tool to get additional funds for smaller districts, other more liberal members of Congress would disagree, saying it is a corruption that must be stopped. One senator even went so far as to say that “funds set aside for special projects encourage waste, overspending and corruption in the system” (Friel, 2010). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Although there are many differing opinions on assignment, the numbers don't seem to lie. Proponents of pork-barrel spending argue that “you don't save anything by cutting budgets,” claiming that it is unelected bureaucrats who actually decide on big spending (Friel, 2010). Other proponents may argue that earmarking can help spread government spending toward more local projects nationwide, instead of a few larger, more centralized projects. But among all the opinions of supporters, the voices of opponents always have a predominant influence on public feelings. Senator George LeMieux of Florida offered a different perspective on earmarking when he said that "…earmarks are, unfortunately, the engine that drives the train that is taking us into these enormous spending problems…so earmarking special is what encourages you to spend more (Friel, 2010).” What he is saying here is that by using allocations, government spending begins to slide down a slippery slope, where spending will gradually become larger and larger until we find ourselves facing a massive deficit. Spending becomes less accountable and it is more difficult to hold those at fault to account. In this politically complex matter, the negative effects seem to outweigh the positives. The astonishing increase in the number of pork projects, from less than two thousand in the 1990s to more than fourteen thousand in 2005 alone (Cato, 2014), shows that Congress clearly found something it could use to his advantage and used it at a surprising rate. The main issue addressed in earmark discussions is that of federal government involvement in state and private matters. Most proposed allocations tend to be financial allocations to the private sector, with taxpayer money then used to help this area. But when payments come back from that private company or group, the profits remain in the commercial chain and are not reinvested in taxpayers or the government. So it makes no sense that citizens who pay taxes pay for something that will not affect them.