Shatz also pointed out that, as stated in the Pig Book , pork per capita comes mostly from the Senate. Schatz went on to list several measures that would help to eliminate pork including the restoration of the line-item veto, eliminating the possibility of appropriation committee members proposing projects in their own states, and transparency in terms of who specifically appropriates money for a project. Schatz elaborated on the need for what he calls transparency in government, saying that it should be easy to see exactly how our tax money is being spent. Instead it is very difficult to trace money. Taxpayers should also have access to a list of what programs are working according to their original stated goals, and what programs have failed.
Pork describes programs that are funded year after year, yet fail to meet the intended goal.
Tom Schatz's remarks are available online. Frances Lee , assistant professor of political science at Case Western University and a scholar of Congress, described the difference between the appropriations process in the House and the Senate. The difference between the two chambers lies in the fact that senators represent entire states while House members represent parts of states and as a result, each chamber has different incentives in constructing programs to distribute federal funds. Senators are able to claim credit for funds allocated under formula grants to states which distribute the bulk of federal grants in aid. House members are less able to claim credit for funds distributed to entire states and thus have a smaller electoral stake in state-based formula grant programs.