Pork projects are policies whose spending is directed to benefit specific districts or projects. Earmarks and other forms of pork sharing do not increase a bill's budget; rather, they increase the share of specific sections of the already established discretionary budget. Legislators often incorporate earmarks that distribute x amount of pork from a large bill to their district. These earmarks are made to appeal to your constituents in an effort to demonstrate that you have worked for their district or provided the necessary funding for a project that benefits them in some way. Many times, these appropriations often fly under the radar due to the focus of the legislature (as a whole) focused on the big picture of the appropriated bill. In the broader public opinion, pig boarding and earmarking have very negative connotations. As John Hudak explains, “Everyone loves to benefit from pork, but no one wants to publicly favor it even though districts and states need it.” The question becomes: Do these funding areas promote the well-being of only individual districts, or do the effects of pig boarding benefit the country as a whole? The answer is probably both. Now, one might assume that because the president holds the nation's welfare in the highest regard, the United States is better off if the power to distribute pork is held in the executive branch, under the hands of the president. However, in the past, when Congress was granted appropriations rights, political disputes such as today's political stalemates had the potential to be resolved using pork barrel politics. While a poor project may benefit a single district, the funding of that project could be the touch that tips the scales… in the middle of the paper… the only individuals with this strong ability to influence policy. To truly change this legislative behavior, all donations, lobbying and PAC funds should be open to the public immediately upon entry. If the problem were addressed from a legislative point of view, elections could be held less often, with longer terms and with a limited number of re-elections. However, limiting the terms allowed may harm the overall functioning of Congress because it would lack the matured intelligence of those long-serving members of Congress. Focusing primarily on larger national issues would ignore local priorities, and everything should start small, simple and expand outward, because that's how you produce well-thought-out expansive projects. The best solution to the “pig in a barrel” issue would be to leave it in the hands of Congress, but only with complete and immediate transparency.