The core argument is that lower income Americans (the 47% who pay no income tax today) would end up paying more in taxes, and the taxes on goods and services would unfairly be placed on them.  The logic being that lower income Americans have less disposable income, and therefore have less choice in whether and what to buy.  A tax on goods would therefore be borne by these currently untaxed Americans.

Although Cain hinted at it, he fails to make the most compelling counter argument to the regressive tax charge: All Americans are already paying indirect taxes through the taxes embedded in the price of goods and services they buy.  To be fair, Cain mentioned embedded taxes On Meet the Press, but only to argue that prices will drop under his plan (a fair point, as well).  He has not yet argued that the tax is not regressive because the high corporate tax rate is already embedded in the cost of goods and services.

For example, if a grocery store sells a loaf of bread for $3, embedded in that price, is the following costs:

1. farming and transporting the wheat, eggs and milk used to make the bread;
2. milling and re-transporting the wheat to make flour;
3. baking and packaging the bread;
4. warehousing and transporting the bread to the store; and
5. stocking the shelves, paying the cashier and the cart guy, and the night janitor, etc., who all work at the store.

At every level, from farmer to mill to baker to wholesaler to store, the relevant business has to pay a 7.65% payroll tax on all employee wages, plus a 35% tax on the business’s profits.  As many conservatives have pointed out, those taxes are only paid by the companies in a technical sense.  In a real sense, they are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

If it costs $1.00 to produce the bread, the baker will sell it to the wholesaler for about $1.30, making a 30% margin.  That margin covers the profit the baker needs to make, net of taxes.  At a 35% tax rate, the baker would pay 10.5 cents on each loaf of bread, meaning the baker nets a profit of $.195 per loaf.  (If the taxes are reduced from 35% to 9%, the baker could sell the same loaf for $1.21 and make the same profit after taxes–this does not count the cost of employer paid employment taxes.)

That tax effect is multiplied at each level of exchange.  The baker already takes on the farmer’s and mill’s taxes and grosses up his price to include those costs in his own profit margin.  So each merchant’s margin includes some multiplier of the taxes already paid at each prior level.  If we assume a profit margin of about 20% for the store, 10% for the wholesaler, 30% for the baker, and 10% for the mill and the farmer, the embedded taxes will add up to over $1.00. (Even if you assume an across the board 10% margin, $.62 of the $3 is due to taxing of profits at each level.)  Put another way, if the corporate tax rate were 0%, bread would cost about $1 less.

While it may be true that some Americans will pay more taxes directly to the U.S. Treasury, the critics who make this argument are not considering the indirect taxes those Americans are already paying.  The proper counter argument for Mr. Cain is that Americans already pay consumption tax, they just don’t realize it.  Under 9-9-9, Americans would have a more transparent view into their real tax burden.

Of course, as the Wall Street Journal points out, the real problem with 9-9-9 is that it will soon become 15-15-15.

There seem to be two main objections to Perry’s comments: first, “but we like Social Security!” and second, it’s not a criminal enterprise.   The first point is a non sequitur.  Maddoff’s clients loved their returns too, until they scheme collapsed.  The second point is also unhelpful.   This is like saying it’s not fair to call a Russian mobster a mafioso because he’s not Italian.

So let’s have an honest look at the claim, and give it’s critics (Social Security’s defenders) the benefit of the doubt.  Let’s deconstruct the definition of a Ponzi Scheme:

1. It is a fraud–the “investors” are unaware of the truth.
2. Early investors are paid by the later ones.
3. To create the illusion of profitability.

Point 1: A Fraud.  To the first point, it is hard to say whether, today, Americans are unaware of the truth of Social Security.  When it was passed in1935, Congress made clear that current retirees would be paid from existing workers.  In fact, one of the main objections to Social Security was that it’s burden on current employees and employers would cause more hardship and unemployment.  It would be hard to argue that Americans are not (or should not be able to easily figure out) that current employees pay for current retirees.

But on another aspect, Governor Perry has a point.  If you are paying into Social Security today, you are not very likely to receive benefits in the future–certainly not at the level at which you are promised.  The latest government report estimates that the Social Security program will be unable to meet its obligations, starting in 2036–100 years after its inception .  So, under current law, those who were born in or after 1969 (i.e., who will turn 67 in 2036 or after) are being lied to.

Point 2: Existing Investors Paid from New Investors.  This is manifestly the case with Social Security.  The major difference is that investment is involuntary (in fact, compulsory), and the only way to avoid the scheme is to not work–not quite a viable option.  In addition, withdrawal from Social Security is not voluntary and only occurs at age .  Unlike a traditional Ponzi scheme, retirees cannot create a run on the manager–though the baby boomers are the closest thing to that.

It is worth noting that the reason most Ponzi schemes collapse is not that the fraud is uncovered, but that people begin to demand their money back in larger amounts than new investors invest.  The two events are, of course, connected, but if mass hallucination allowed people to ignore the inevitable, the scheme could last indefinitely–until withdrawals outpaced investments.  It could even last for 100 years.  Withdrawals outpacing deposits is an exact parallel with the baby boomer crisis: in 1950, there were 16 workers supporting each retiree.  Today, there are about 3.

Point 3: The Illusion of Profitability.  Here, again, the point should be conceded.  The government has spent the better part of a century siphoning off the excess funds collected as workers vastly outnumbered retirees.  In lieu of investment or even holding those funds in a static account, the government used it for its own purposes, and is now finding itself nearly empty handed when the largest bills are coming due.

So yes, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but it is also legal.  But it is only legal because the government runs it.  Ask yourself this: if your employer came out with a new pension plan that promised guaranteed benefits for every worker, and used today’s employee wages to pay for current retirees, how fast would the FBI and Department of Labor raid his offices?

As you can imagine, a GOP balanced budget amendment ties spending to revenue; i.e., the government’s budget cannot exceed the revenue it collects.  Democrats, however, view the problem from the opposite direction: the government has to collect as much in revenue revenue as it spends.

To do this, you would, of course, need to first pass a budget, then you would need to either have dynamic tax rates or a fixed amount of tax per person.  In other words, if you had a revenue-based tax, you would have to solve for (1) people don’t know their revenue until year end, especially those who have investment income or own their own business; (2) the fact that the government spends money like a drunken Kennedy.

The simpler solution, then would be to have the tax burden spread evenly, per capita (this ridiculous idea is how our federal government was supposed to work before the income tax amendment). At a “budget” of roughly $4T and a population of roughly 300M (including the unemployed, the retired, and infants, toddlers, kids and tweens), would mean a tax burden of about $13,333 each.  So, a family of four would have to pay $53,333 per year.  Billy better get that paper route.

This, of course, runs afoul of Democratic principles, which, as far as we can tell, can be reduced to “rich people are evil.”  We can safely dismiss this as not “progressive” enough.  In deed, it wouldn’t even tax those evil corporations that do all those evil things, like employ people.

So, a Democratic version of a balanced budget, would therefore have to keep the progressive structure of our income tax code, but would need to vary the actual rates, depending on its spending.  For the ordinary citizen, this means you wouldn’t know your tax bill, or even your rate until the end of the year when you knew how much the government actually spent.  At the end of the year, the government would announce it’s spending and would tell you what you owed:

Hello, Mr. Taxpayer! So good to see you. So, we spent a little more than we thought this year. We really wanted to do a study on penis size in the gay community, and there were a few other critical items, not to mention the bank bailouts, auto bailouts and Obama’s family trips. And it’s not fair to means test for things like social security and medicare, so your tax bill comes to….let’s see here…working family of four–ooh over a $100K in family income–Mr. Fancy Pants!  Let’s see, carry the eleventeen–$107,568.12.   Will that be cash or check?

Sounds crazy, but that’s what the government does today.  Of course, it’s not on an annual basis, that would result in something all politicians hate–accountability.  No, today, the government dispatches its tax collectors into the future, where they shakedown your grandkids, their children and their children and their children.

Today, the rating agencies are taking the government’s failure to right its own financial ship seriously.  Moody’s and S&P are considering reevaluating the U.S.’s AAA rating–the same rating Krugman objected them giving to asset backed securities.  Krugman and others are, of course, livid and are once again crying conflict of interest and impugning the rating agencies’ integrity.

Now, let’s not be naive.  Part of the downgrade threat is Moody’s and S&P exacting a little revenge on the administration and the party that dragged it through Congressional hearings last year and sullied their names.  But that doesn’t make the risk any less real.  Anyone who puts the risk of U.S. default at zero is delusional. Obama wanted the rating agencies to be hard on debt issues, well, this is what happens to debt issuers who spend like drunken politicians.  The government should not be excused from the risk of default simply because it can, literally, print money.

Whether or not you believe the rating agencies unethically inflated the ratings of ABS’s in the past, making the same mistake for the government today would not be any better.  Unless MIT has made some advances in ethical accounting, two wrongs still don’t make a right.

Maybe she’s right, maybe the discretionary spending disproportionately effects septuagenarians who, despite having gone through menopause, nonetheless like to know how the size of a man’s penis impacts his popularity in the gay community.  Or maybe Debbie  just wants to balloon the size of the federal government on the backs of their as yet unborn grandchildren, great grandchildren and their great grandchildren, etc.

1. Conservatives (not read as “rich,” but principled) argue that most people don’t pay income tax.  We all know about payroll tax, but that is earmarked for a particular program.  The fact that lower income people are tax payers because they pay into social security and medicare does not make misleading the argument that they do not pay into the general Treasury.  That’s like two people traveling cross country, one paying for gas and tolls.  When he complains that his companion is not paying his fair share, his companion says, “That’s a lie! I’ve paid for all my own meals.”
2. Same lie in a different context.  Lumping in FICA and Medicare in a conversation about income tax is bringing a squeegee to a gun fight.
3. More number fudging.  In 1960, the top 400 tax payers were a larger slice of the population.  Twice as large in fact, as there were only 180 million people in the U.S. 50 years ago.  Secondly, the fact that the top 400 pay less in taxes merely means that the high income tax base is spread out over more individuals.  The top 4 running backs had more yards in the NFL in 1960 than the top 4 do today–there are more backs and more teams.
4. Ignoring the corporate form and law is fertile ground for propaganda. Hank Paulson did not earn that money, his hedge fund did, and so long as the fund retains the money, it remains at risk.  Risk of investment losses, and more importantly, risk of the funds’ creditors.  Substitute Paulson for Maddoff (a trade many would argue is like for like) and you can see the huge difference.  Maddoff would have been wiped out, but instead he took the money out of the fund (paid taxes on it) and bought personal and real property with it.  Letting the money ride is the privilege of owning a business, and without it, the credit crunch would have been that much worse as more capital bled into taxed oblivion.  So too, leveraging.  The reason the tax code sees the McCourts as paupers is because they are.  They no longer have any legal right to the revenue that they have leveraged.  Their lifestyle may be quite nice, but on paper they have no income because–and this is important–THEY HAVE NO INCOME.
5. I don’t know how this would be a secret–most people appreciate that, as societies develop, the capital owners become more wealthy.  Risks and costs reduce, allowing the owner of a good company to exact a higher margin.  If you build a better mousetrap factory, you should make more profits in the mousetrap business. There is no requirement in this country that the boss share the wealth.  There is in other countries, it’s called socialism.  There’s a reason socialist countries have few billionaires and fewer productive companies.
6. No one disagrees that the tax code is a labyrinth of deductions and dim witted incentives.  Corporations are legally bound (to their shareholders) to fight for every legal advantage and preserve the capital invested in the company for business purposes.  As much as it hurts the tender sensitivities of liberals, there is no legal requirement to maximize your tax burden.  The fact that Congress, in its microscopic wisdom, continues to enact deductions and offsets cannot be blamed on the corporations that benefit from them.
7. This is just arguing out of both sides of your mouth. David complains in #4 that evil hedge fund managers refuse to take money out and be taxed, but here he claims higher taxes would encourage them to do just that.  Higher taxes have not lead to a single job outside of the federal government. Companies have an incentive to make money, not jobs.  If it is more profitable to move jobs from humans to machines, they will (and are obliged to their shareholders to).  So to, if it is more profitable to outsource jobs internationally.  By the way, allowing companies to “repatriate” funds is a uniquely American concept.  Only the IRS believes that it has the right to tax taxpayers wherever their profits are made–every other taxing authority leaves taxes to the local jurisdiction.  Why should a company that employs its personnel in, conducts its business in, services customers based in, owns its factories in and benefits from the police, fire and courts of Singapore be required to pay taxes in Washington?  Because it’s corporate parent was formed in Delaware 100 years ago? If you really want to emulate Germany, let’s do that–a German citizen can move to Dubai, make gobs of money at a lower tax rate, and retire in Germany with full health care, never having paid a penny of German taxes on the Dubai “windfall.” No American can do that legally.
8. All politicians like taxes in the same way that hookers like prophylactics. They won’t admit it, but they need them to get on with their business (in both cases, screwing people). Reagan’s increase to social security was because he saw the insolvency coming.  That surplus is now a deficit and it grows every year. Would you rather he had taken the Obama approach and cut FICA in half just when it began to take in less than it put out every year?
9. So move to Germany.  Singapore has immaculate streets, should we adopt a penal code that imposes caning for littering?  Senator McCain suggested a fix to the health care issue, which Obama & Biden called the largest tax hike on the middle class in history. And then they proposed it themselves a year later, only without the offsetting tax deduction. Health care is only tied to jobs in the US because of wage freezes imposed by Democrats during World War II.  Rather than allowing competition for employees (which would have raised wages), Congress froze pay and that meant employers could only compete on fringe benefits, like dental and health care coverage.  Idiotic policies have consequences.

UPDATE

Mr. Johnston,
Thank you for your comment. From what I’ve read of your writing, I think we both agree that the tax code is bloated, inefficient and unfair. Where we disagree is that I do not think it is fair to blame the wealthy or the corporations for taking advantage of a system put in place by a corrupt legislature and an increasingly broken form of government.

My view is that a decent accounting firm and an army of lawyers is the only corporate defense against waves of populism that attempt to make capitalism a four letter word. I would rather we reduce the tax code to 25 pages and let all of those intelligent people accomplish something far more productive.

As for who is to blame, I do not exempt George Bush or even Reagan from their fair share of blame for complicating the tax code. Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats for ruining the tax code, they’re just not so damn sanctimonious about it.

My remark about Germany was not an ultimatum, but a way to make a point. I don’t know the statistics, but I would bet that far more Germans emigrate to the US than the reverse. My point is that their taxation has consequences that many Americans would reject. Moreover, although Germany’s GDP may be growing quicker, most of the incremental increase is due to exports, which benefited from a weakening Euro. On average, German workers are less productive than their US counterparts. Meaning that the US economy, if not run into the ground, should outperform Germany in the long run. Moreover, the government benefits you endorse are unsustainable. The UK is facing riots as it tries to extricate itself from free universal college education and European health care is not a model to be aspired to.

Regarding your claims about the top 400 taxpayers, your clear implication that the rich keep getting richer, a 2007 Treasury report showed that the top of the taxpayer base is not constant. The top 25% of taxpayers change from year to year as businesses succeed and fail. As the Wall Street Journal put it, the “rich are not the same people over time.”

I also disagree with your points about FICA. The fact that the government can and does raid the coffers of social security and Medicare, does not suddenly make those revenues part of the general treasury. The treasury bonds put in the trust fund will have to be paid by income tax and other general revenue sources. And that income tax is paid by a smaller and smaller percentage of people.

The fact that social security has collected $2 trillion more than it has paid out does not mean that the Treasury has that money free and clear. Those funds were paid into the social security system by people who have not yet retired or begun to draw benefits. As I’m sure you are aware, the 2010 trustee’s report projected a $7.9 trillion deficit for social security. Claiming the past $2 trillion as “excess” is like allowing an insurance company to spend the premiums they collect because the policy holder has not died yet. We can argue about whether or not this is a lie, but it sure is not being honest.

People who only pay FICA and Medicare can claim their money was wrongly used (or more accurately, loaned) for general spending, but they cannot claim to have supported the federal budget directly. That is the same as my mortgage bank claiming they bought my house. You know as well as I do that a loan is not an equity interest. Saying otherwise is indeed a lie. The fact remains that the burden of supporting the wrongheaded, ineffective and wasteful federal bureaucracy falls on a minority of earners, even though the largess is aimed at the majority. That is a moral hazard, and raising taxes on the “rich” will only make it worse.

Take, for example, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (D-termined not trim the budget).  He announced a plan for rolling closures of Philadelphia firehouses, in order to save $3.5 million out of a $4 billion budget.  This is a common ploy by politicians–”give me my way or I will deprive you of fire, police and education services.”

A closer look at the city’s budget, however, reveals many easier ways to reduce such a relatively minor amount.  The total fire department budget is a little under $189 million.  (That is a little more than 2.5 times the size of the Mayor’s office–but I’m sure there is no waste, fraud and abuse going on there.)

So what about other, non-essential services?  The library budget is nearly $33 million–a 10% cut would get the city 95% of the way there.  If half of the library budget is operating costs, closing down the library’s twice a week for the rest of the year would generate about $3.5 million.  But I guess Mayor Nutter thinks that the 2 or 3 people who use the library on a daily basis are more important than the millions that rely on the fire department to not, well, die in a fire.

And what about the $64 million “Economic Development & Arts and Culture Budget?”  Can nothing be spared there?  Is there no room to cut at the $4 million Office of Arts and Culture?  Surely not–we would rather die in a fire than have one day without the Atwater Kent Museum.

I am not the mayor of Philadelphia, so I do not have access to the same information Mayor Nutter does.  But I cannot imagine that that fine city is run so efficiently that the only option to save 0.1% of the budget, is to put its citizens at risk.

The conversation started over why, as Jon Stewart so eloquently pointed out (start at the 7:00 mark), that every President since before I was born has tried to solve our foreign oil problem, and yet, it keeps getting worse.  The problem, I explained, was that the government cannot mandate ingenuity.

Obama’s plan, as all “green” projects in the past have, is to shove money at the problem and naively Hope™ that bureaucrats and politicians can pick a winner from primitive, undeveloped versions of future technologies.  Of course, these people have their own biases, and often find that the only projects that will work are ones in their own district or ones from which they or their union friends will personally benefit.  Even assuming you can level the playing field, you are asking people with little or no background in physics, engineering or astrology to decide which technology will, after billions of dollars and decades of false starts, be the one that pays off.  This is a lot like asking a 2 month old infant to pick your mutual fund–it may work out, but chances are you’re just pissing money away.

This is a lot like asking an infant to pick your mutual fund–it may work out, but chances are you’re just pissing money away.

The stick in all of this, of course, is that the government will fund this bad idea on the backs of taxpayers and energy consumers.  Just as they did in Spain, Germany and Denmark, “green” initiatives will increase the cost of energy, including low cost existing sources like oil, coal and natural gas.  A cap and trade program is a way to mandate an increase in the cost of existing fuel.  Even Obama admits that his policies would “bankrupt” the coal industry.

So I began to think what a carrot would look like.  By far, the most palatable incentive for free market types is a tax break–but “green” policies already provide tax incentives to “go green.”  In the context of our current energy issues, this is very much like giving a $5 off coupon for brass polish to the captain of the Titanic.  What is needed is an incentive to innovate that cannot be turned down.

Here is my two part proposal:

First, drill, baby, drill.  Access all of our natural resources domestically until that Texas tea cannot be found anywhere under American feet or swimsuits.  Start an immediate program to bring to market every ounce of oil under American control, shale, natural gas, ANWR–everything.  As Krauthammer pointed out last month, we are only drilling in deep water because environmentalists won’t let us drill where it is safe.  This is absurd and self defeating and needs to stop.  Cut the red tape, bar the law suits and start drilling.

Second, for the carrot–call it the federal X-prize: the first company (or individual) who patents and brings to market either of the “new energy technologies” listed below will not have to pay federal taxes for the next 25 years.  The President will, in his infinite wisdom, set out the basic objective criteria for a “new energy technologies” in direct power and power generation.  The criteria must be vague enough to allow for unforeseen solutions, and specific enough to be used to determine success objectively.  My suggestion for the direct power criteria are;

1. A source of energy (e.g. a battery or a motor) that can power a standard size SUV for 300 miles at highway speed without stopping to refuel.
2. Weighs less than 25 gallons of gasoline or provides sufficient additional power to compensate.
3. Is renewable or reusable (a battery or a primary source).
4. Is non toxic to the environment and its users.
5. Is marketable (price point without subsidies) to ordinary consumers.

The argument, of course, will be on the definitions for the above.  For power generation, I suggest the following criteria:

1. A source of energy that can provide energy on a large scale (at least 500 MW) at or below the national average cost per kWh (currently, about $.15 per kWh) with the builder recouping construction costs.
2. Is renewable or reusable.
3. Is non toxic to the environment and its users.
4. Is capable of mass production and use in large and small markets.

So these are the product criteria.  If you bring a product to market, you won’t owe Uncle Sam a dime for the next quarter century.

This would spark a search like none other since the Holy Grail.  Every company in the world, technology companies, aerospace companies, oil companies, credit card companies, would make massive investments to win the brass ring: a 60-70% increase of after tax profits for 25 years.  [For the math inclined, a corporation pays roughly 35% in federal taxes out of a total tax burden of 40-50% for most companies.  If you take off the 35% federal tax, after tax profits (the percentage the company keeps) will go from 50-60% to 85-95%.  85%/50% = 170%; 95%/60% = 158%.]

To give this some real world numbers, Exxon, the largest U.S. company by revenue, pays about $5-7 billion in federal taxes each year.  So at the maximum, this would be about a $175 billion “investment” over 25 years.  Of course, unlike Obama’s $50 billion plan, not a penny of this would be wasted–we would only make the “investment” after the goods were delivered.

For perspective, all of the world governments combined spend $500 billion per year on “green” subsidies that are largely a waste of money.  So for a maximum of 1% of that price, the United States could revolutionize the energy industry and solve our foreign oil problem.

Looking at it a different way, the U.S. imports 9.73 million barrels of oil per day.  That’s about $980 million per day going to stalwart allies like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Venezuela.  That’s $357 billion of American money exported per year.  I know liberals hate the idea of even one corporation not paying taxes, but we get very little tax revenue from the $357 billion we send over seas.

This idea may seem extreme, but (1) no government subsidy has ever worked to move the needle for oil consumption and (2) it is completely cost free if it works.  Moreover, it is not unprecedented.  Many countries provide low or zero tax agreements to companies in order to spur local economic growth.  Singapore and Dubai, for example, have economic development councils that encourage multinational corporations to build their regional business there.  The company gets a massive tax break and the host country gets higher employment, ancillary economic growth (workers need food, lodging and entertainment) and bragging rights.

Under my plan, companies would be given the incentive to expand their R&D departments, hire more employees and develop technologies that, even if they do not win the prize, will at least be taking us in the right direction.  (We might not have digital thermometers or cordless tools if not for the space program.)  If the research resulting in a dead-end, the cost is borne by the private company, not the taxpayer.  And no technology would have a defacto advantage through bureaucratic endorsement.  The government would be encouraging risk and innovation, rather than underwriting it, or worse, stifling it.

The CARD Act, passed late last year, was intended to create a “Cardholder Bill of Rights.” Far from it, the Credit CARD Act has prompted credit card companies to raise their prices (APR on balances); restrict lending by reducing available credit; charge annual fees on basic cards that have not been seen for decades; and refuse to offer products that were on the market only a year ago.

We were told that credit card companies were evil and shouldn’t profit so much. We were told that credit card companies should not be able to change their price based on risk–if you default on one loan, why should another lender be able to raise your rates? Congress declared an end to the law of cause and effect. Amazingly, there were unintended consequences from Congressional hubris.  Sure, you have marginally clearer disclosure on credit card practices now, but what good is disclosure for a product you can’t afford?  I’m sure the people at Maserati put out a fantastic brochure, but that doesn’t help me at the Dodge dealership.

And now, the Democrats tell us that health insurance companies are unfairly profiting from you. We are told they should not be able to underwrite based on risk–if you’re already sick, why won’t they give you insurance? It takes little brains not to realize what will happen to insurance premiums and plans. But then again, that is what Congress is known for–little brains.

To put that in perspective, most Americans spend about 13-15% on groceries each year.  So Obama’s budget “freeze” is the equivalent of you saying you won’t increase your grocery budget next year.  You will still drive the Lexus, you will still pay for your second cousin’s hip replacement, and you’ll still give your brother’s wife’s uncle a little spending cash because he neglected to save for his retirement–but, darn it, you’re going to keep the grocery budget in check.

Of course, this isn’t really a freeze.  It is, as Obama has said, keeping the total amount of the budget in check.  Knowing Obama and the Democrats like we do, you can bet that we’ll be upgrading our cold-cuts to Boarshead ham, while cutting out the fruits and vegetables and switching to store-bought rice crispies.  After all, there is nothing politicians like more than pork.