Pork-barrel legislation exemplifies the interest-group paradox in action, though the paradox encompasses much more than pork-barrel legislation. There are myriad government programs that — like pork-barrel projects — are intended to favor particular classes of individuals. Here is a minute sample:
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, for the benefit of the elderly
Tax credits and deductions, for the benefit of low-income families, charitable and other non-profit institutions, and home buyers (with mortgages)
Progressive income-tax rates, for the benefit of persons in the mid-to-low income brackets
Subsidies for various “essential” industries and products (e.g., solar panels, wind farms, EVs)
Import quotas, tariffs, and other restrictions on trade, for the benefit of particular industries and/or labor unions
Pro-union laws (in many States), for the benefit of unions and unionized workers
Non-smoking ordinances, for the benefit of bar and restaurant employees and non-smoking patrons.
What do these examples have in common? Answer: Each comes with costs. There are direct costs (e.g., higher taxes for some persons, higher prices for imported goods), which the intended beneficiaries and their proponents hope to impose on non-beneficiaries. Just as important, there are hidden costs of various kinds (e.g., disincentives to work and save, disincentives to make investments that spur economic growth).
You may believe that a particular program is worth what it costs — given that you probably have little idea of its direct costs and no idea of its hidden costs. The problem is that millions of your fellow Americans believe the same thing about each of their favorite programs. Because there are thousands of government programs (federal, State, and local), each intended to help a particular class of citizens at the expense of others, the net result is that almost no one in this fair land enjoys a “free lunch”. Even the relatively few persons who might seem to have obtained a “free lunch” — homeless persons taking advantage of a government-provided shelter — often are victims of the “free lunch” syndrome. Some homeless persons may be homeless because they have lost their jobs and can’t afford to own or rent housing. But they may have lost their jobs because of pro-union laws, minimum-wage laws, or progressive tax rates (which caused “the rich” to create fewer jobs through business start-ups and expansions). And they may be homeless because programs meant to aid the homeless encourage more homelessness.
The paradox that arises from the “free lunch” syndrome is like the paradox of panic, in that there is a crowd of interest groups rushing toward a goal — a “pot of gold” — and (figuratively) crushing each other in the attempt to snatch the pot of gold before another group is able to grasp it. The gold that any group happens to snatch is a kind of fool’s gold: It passes from one fool to another in a game of beggar-thy-neighbor, and as it passes much of it falls into the maw of bureaucracy.
The interest-group paradox has dominated American politics since the advent of “Progressivism” in the late 1800s. Today, most Americans are either “progressives” or victims of “progressivism”. All too often they are both.