In 2017, the Daily Beast went so far as to argue that political gridlock is “killing us, literally.” The blog argued that gridlock and lack of political will were allowing politicians to dodge dealing with issues like gun control and the soaring national debt: “our political system is grinding to a halt and producing more demagoguery than governance. Journalists and politicians periodically complain that gridlock is making it impossible to solve the most serious problems of our day. They accuse us of a lot of other stuff.”įew people seem to share Scalia’s sunny view of gridlock.

Congress doesn’t have to do that…That’s the principle reason people don’t accuse us of gridlock. We can’t just say, ‘We haven’t decided about this case, so go away.’ Sooner or later you gotta vote, so there it is. At the same time, Scalia did point out that the Supreme Court operates more smoothly than the rest of the federal government. “We have to act. “Gridlock is what our system is designed for,” he told the president of the Newseum. The late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia argued that gridlock has gotten a bad rap in fact, Scalia said, gridlock is just one more necessary part of the founding fathers’ plan. Alexander Hamilton complained bitterly about the trouble the Continental Congress had in coming to an agreement the debates between the Federalists and the Republicans were as fierce as any debates today. “Republicans probably get less electoral benefit from earmarks, there’s some evidence of that, and they also have an ideological opposition to them,” Evans said.In politics, gridlock is a situation in which the government is unable to pass new legislation, often because the presidency and the Congress are controlled by different political parties.Īs the Brookings Institution has pointed out, gridlock has been around for as long as the United States, if not longer. And, they may not be as effective when Republicans are the minority party. When they were last used nearly a decade ago, American politics wasn’t characterized by the same degree of partisanship that exists now. But Evans said that lawmakers could put transparency measures in place like requiring a lawmaker to associate their name with an earmark.Īnother concern is the effectiveness of earmarks in the current political environment. The possibility of corruption is impossible to entirely eliminate. “I’m thinking that they may think that this would be helpful in protecting their majority.” “The Democrats have a very narrow majority right now,” Evans said. Evans has concluded through research that earmarks do help Congress pass legislation, particularly appropriations bills and highway bills. They think it will help them keep power, and improve government gridlock. They argued that pork was a drag on the budget, and facilitated corruption.ĭemocratic leadership has been considering bringing earmarks back for over a year, Evans said. Professor Diana Evans, earmarks expert and political science professor at Trinity College, joined the Texas Standard to talk about the possible impact of earmarks returning.Įarmarks “grease the wheels of government” by allowing lawmakers to attach federally funded projects in their home districts to broader legislation in exchange for a vote.īut in 2011, the Republican leaders in the House opted to put a moratorium on earmarks. But now, after almost a decade, they appear poised to make a return. In 2011, Republican leaders of the House of Representatives banned earmarks altogether. Their detractors, on the other hand, say they’re the very definition of corruption and crony capitalism. Their backers will tell you that they’re a tool to grease the wheels of governments.

Pork barrel spending, as it is commonly called, allows individual lawmakers to win federal funding for projects back home – a bridge, for example, or a military base. When the new Congress convenes in January, pork might be back on the menu.

Gridlock government definition