In a 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama vowed to veto any bill that contains earmarks. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a televised interview, promptly dismissed the president’s statement as “an applause line,” and noted that lawmakers have a constitutional duty to direct spending that Congress authorizes, in order words—a duty to “earmark.” Typical Americans want the benefit of earmarks and reward legislators who deliver them with reelection, but they don’t want to foot the bill for spending in some other district or state. Identify a current issue (last two years) related to pork barrel spending. What factors make the bill an earmark? Given the potential costs to legislators for supporting earmarks, why do legislators continue to structure bills with plenty of pork to go around? Is the president’s veto threat likely to change legislative behavior? Why or why not? 2 pages