Why So Much Pork?

Question from a reader:

"Partisanship aside, what do you say when you look at the itemization of the package and there are spending initiatives that clearly look like pet projects and are not part of stimulating the economy. Some of these can add up to a quarter of the total spending. It strikes me as odd that these would be tacked onto such an important bill in an important time, and right after the elections- where both candidates pledged no "pork". Why is the Obama admin not addressing/defending some of these items and why are they there in the first place?

On a separate note, this link has a pretty good graphic of the overal allocation of funds. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html"

TW: My take:
1) Your pork is someone else's relevant spending. You, me and ten other folks might comb through the bill and pick out many things we regard as unnecessary, the problem would be few of the items would be common amidst all twelve folks or even most of them. I would especially anticipate this problem if you are talking about big dollars (i.e. the 25%). Which items do u consider pork?
2) Despite #1, there are things a majority might regard as dubious but generally those are smaller dollar items. Politically trimming those items at risk of alienating key supporters within Congress is a losing proposition. Those items make great bait for the skeptics but are not ultimately the key provisions.
3) In other words the process of governance breeds "pork", I do not regard it as a partisan issue. Could Obama put his foot down and demand we change "how government is done", sure. But would we have a stimulus package today, I strongly doubt it. Circular yes, real also yes.
4) Finally even if it "pork" it may still be useful:
From Mark Thoma (economist)
"What people miss, I think, is that if enhanced macroeconomic stability makes people better off, i.e. if the increased stability from countercyclical government spending has value, then it's possible for government spending to be worthwhile even if the spending is on wasteful goods. When the government spends money there are two effects, there is the benefit derived directly from the spending on things like roads and water treatment plants, and there is a second benefit from the increased employment and output (the enhanced stability) that results from the extra spending. If this stabilizing effect is large enough, then there can be overall benefits even if the direct effects from the spending are small. It's best to maximize benefits, of course, and the stimulus plan does very well relative to standard government operations like this, but the the lack of direct benefits does not, in and of itself, mean the net benefits are necessarily negative. When unemployment is high and there is slack in the economy, the benefits from enhanced stability can be large."