Mitch McConnell sneaks provision to boost sunscreen from his home state into stimulus bill: report
The Republican Senate leader put a provision in the stimulus that expedites FDA approval of a product in his state
MATTHEW CHAPMAN
MARCH 27, 2020 7:52AM (UTC)
The $2 trillion coronavirus relief stimulus package contains a number of vital provisions to help the American people. But as with most bills of its size and complexity, it is also loaded with small giveaways to help key senators serve special interests in their states.
According to Politico, one of the strangest such provisions, relating to sunscreen, appears to be for the benefit of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
"A provision for the FDA to approve 'innovative' sunscreens — that happen to be made in Florence, Ky., by L'Oreal — appeared in the bill, which was steered in the Senate by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky," reported Caitlin Emma, Jennifer Scholtes, and Theodoric Meyer.
As the bill's details were wrangled, Republicans frequently went public to argue that Democrats were holding up the bill to try to force through pork-barrel spending — even though many of their demands, including funding for mail-in election ballots, served a genuine purpose in giving Americans more options to practice social distancing.
</snip>
= new reply since forum marked as read
We need a line-item veto for the President, not that it would have made much difference here.
Also, we need to put deterrents from bastardizing bills like this into the law. Something like anyone caught doing this shall be clubbed upside the head with a board with a nail in it...
and that is called "pork" by some but others might call it a "return on investment". 
If funds are allocated for a special educational project in a locality, then is that "pork"? Perhaps... if that "project" went to a "wealthy" town that already has similar initiatives in place, and then it might be something to consider as "icing on their cake" ("pork" ).
But if it went to a poorer area that is in need of musical instruments for their schools (and construction of something to store them in to prevent theft), then that might be a good use of tax payer money as a way to broaden the appeal for musical education.
The whole idea of "riders" (that was very common in the past), was reduced quite a bit - notably for budget appropriations/reconciliation, thanks to the "Byrd Rule", that pretty much forbids (policy) riders, although often they (and other funding things) do get through in "supplemental appropriations" like this.
Bills like this emergency one should especially be free of local pork. But thast's just me, I guess... 
That has been a wish by many for decades. They had pretty much minimized the use of supplemental appropriations recently, which is where you see this happening (notably as we approached the closing down of the various 9/11-related wars). But this health-related emergency popped up, and appropriations are now being made without "pay fors", and the "supplemental appropriation" process has now been given new life.
That last Budget Control Act in 2013 had supposedly attempted to keep this sort of thing in check but of course Congress can "create" and then come back around and "uncreate" whenever they want.
