It refers to the practice of members or chambers agreeing to support new programs or spending they previously opposed in exchange for items they wanted but others previously opposed. They agree to support each other's requests. Writ large, the practice results in millions of dollars in additional spending each year that either the House or Senate declined to include in their initial budget plans. Some believe that logrolling is an essential part of a functioning legislative process. But in reality, the practice subverts the process.
Government grows, legislators bring pork barrel back to their home districts, and taxpayers lose.
In the debate over North Carolina's FY 2000-01 budget, the stakes are particularly large. Other differences include millions of dollars in education, human resources, housing, commerce, agriculture, and courts funding. That is, as they reconcile the two budgets, they could choose in areas of difference to accept the lower number proposed, including zero. After all, if one chamber includes a spend ing program in its budget that another chamber leaves out, there is obviously not a consensus behind it. The budget process should err on the side of general taxpayers, not those relatively few individuals benefitting from the proposed expenditure.