Renouncing the pork barrel is not really hard for our legislators to do. In fact it is not essential to the functioning of the legislative branch of our government. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a mention of this pork barrel. The sovereign people did not expressly empower Congress to appropriate funds for the use of its members in the delivery of public services, development of infrastructures and implementation of public works projects. These are the functions of the executive departments, both the local and national. Call it CDF, PDAF or any other name; it is still an appropriation for private or political advantage. There is simply no legal or moral justification for Congress to hold on to any portion of this pork especially during this critical period.
The plain truth is that over the years, the pork barrel has become the strongest magnet drawing so many individuals to seek Congressional and Senatorial seats and spend enormous amount to win them. It was originally envisioned as a modest amount appropriated in aid of legislation until its true nature as State appropriations for private or political advantage could no longer be covered up. Now, the pork in the Congressional barrel has grown so fatty that the seats in both houses have become attractive investments yielding fantastic profits. Could this be the main reason why many of our Senators and Congressmen cannot easily give up their whole share of the pork barrel? Are they willing to reduce it only and not give it up entirely because they would want to at least recover their investments in terms of huge amounts spent in the last elections?
Aside from reducing the budget deficit, there are other more important benefits to be derived in doing away with the pork barrel. Without the profitable perks attached to them, candidates will no longer find it beneficial to invest so much money to covet the posts. Election spending will thus be minimized.
Moreover, the seats in Congress will no longer be like sugar drawing all the ants. The number of aspirants will surely dwindle. The seats will no longer be attractive to just about anybody with all sorts of motives. Those who know that they are not fit for the position will shy away from it even if they believe they can win it because of popularity, since it only means a lot of hard work they cannot ably tackle. And being aware that their Congressmen and Senators do not have "pork" to share, people will not flock to them anymore for the usual dole outs or ask their help in case of disasters. Congress members need the pork only because they themselves have taught the people this dole out mentality. It is erroneous for them to use this argument now in order to retain these perks.
But the most beneficial effect of a "pork barrel-less" Congress is the elimination of political advantage. The political playing field will be leveled making it easier to remove incompetent, do-nothing incumbents and elect the most qualified and most sincere in their desire to serve the people in the legislative branch of the government. We will surely revive that long lost and terribly missed era when Congress was inhabited by more statesmen and less politicians. The nation will never go wrong abolishing the pork barrel.