OT: Congress go home and stop "fixing" this country

[Buccaneer]

It's probably no wonder why I am turning more libertarian everyday (and will vote as thus). I am a firm believer that when Congress tries to "fix" something with legislation, they end up making things much worse and much, much costly for the taxpayers. This is not a recent phenomenon but has been going for a long time.

There are many examples but more recently, I was struck by the soundbite on the so-called energy bill when Bush wanted $8b in tax incentives, Congress upped it to $16b and then the @%#$! lobbyists made sure it got to $20b. It is not just this energy bill but all major legislation, ranging from one political extreme to the other, Democrats and Republicans/liberals and conservatives alike for each have their own expensive and self-serving lobbyists. Whether it's Big Labor, Big Greens, Big Oil, Big Steel, Big Defense, and worse of all, Big Lawyers.

Someone posted a reason for such bureaucracy - it is for regulation and compliance. Who then would hold them accountable? Seems like many voters just have their brain's turn to mush whenever a politician (or more accurately, a presidential candidate promises more of the same but only bigger and better). [i]Why do we constantly put up with this??[i]

Here is an editorial that sums it up nicely...

Congress, go home

Eleventh-hour legislating produces bad laws that don’t help the nation.

It’s a shame that there’s nothing analogous to the medical profession’s Hippocratic oath — first, do no harm — for members of Congress. If there were, Congress would have to adjourn today for the rest of the year, leaving undone a laundry list of major legislative packages, most of which have been so badly mangled in the congressional sausage maker that recessing now would be a welcome reprieve, rather than a reason for recriminations.

Learning what we have about the major pieces of unfinished business still pending before Congress — an energy package, Medicare bill, omnibus appropriations package and what’s left of the president’s Healthy Forest Initiative — we have increasingly come to fear the prospect of their making their way to the president’s desk. We think the nation is probably better off if they wouldn’t, based on the notion that no bills are better than bad ones.

All of these bills are either a distorted facsimile of what was originally intended, and what’s really needed, or so loaded down with pork, special-interest handouts and hidden and poorly understood provisions that they will almost certainly do more harm than good — all at extraordinary cost to taxpayers.

Legislators desperate to look like they are doing something constructive will naturally say that passage of these measures, while they aren’t perfect, is nonetheless a step in the right direction.

But that’s self-serving pap.

The Medicare bill is an ill-conceived expansion of an already out of control entitlement program which does little to reform or fix what’s broken but much to hasten the day of its financial insolvency.

Even worse, it’s a tawdry and cynical exercise in vote-chasing by both parties, a pander to senior citizens that will heap huge financial burdens on younger Americans as the costs of a new prescription benefit balloon in years to come.

The energy bill, as we indicated last week, is an incoherent mash of proposals and provisions which should not be confused with an energy “policy,” and in which the bad provisions almost certainly outweigh the good. The bill includes a sop to an array of Washington special interests and is a corporate welfare blank check that most likely will do little to benefit taxpayers or energy consumers, or enhance America’s energy self-sufficiency.

We believe the best way to boost domestic energy production and diversity is to reduce government red tape, end the manipulation of free markets, and fashion a consistent and predictable public lands policy. But Congress largely took the opposite approach, apparently believing America can subsidize and regulate its way to energy self-sufficiency, much to the delight of hundreds of Washington’s top lobbyists.

The Healthy Forest Initiative, though trumpeted as a triumph of bipartisanship, has emerged a belated and diluted halfmeasure which doesn’t go far enough in streamlining regulations that have led to analysis paralysis in federal land agencies, and still vests too much power over public lands policies in the squeaky wheels that have made protest a profession.

In typical Washington fashion, the bill proposes spending more than a quarter-billion dollars annually doing wildfire prevention work that would pay for itself if structured properly. The bill also reportedly mandates special treatment for “old growth” forests, while never adequately defining a term that means different things to different people — an ambiguity that will undoubtedly be used as a loophole to undermine the law’s effectiveness.

A few conscientious members of Congress rightly demanded that the forest initiative be stripped of several nongermaine provisions that were tacked on, including a change in laws concerning cock fighting and the use of the word “ginseng.”

But the fact that these extras were slipped in is emblematic of the shameless way some members of Congress will exploit any opportunity to advance selfish narrow interests and turn virtually any piece of legislation into a pork-barrel pull cart.

And where, speaking of pork, do we begin on the subject of the “omnibus” spending measure Congress is preparing to ram through, consolidating all the appropriations bills it couldn’t bother to complete in the time legally allotted? The regular use of such tactics is one primary reason that federal discretionary spending is rising with record speed and budget deficits have returned with a vengeance.

Is all the eleventh-hour scrambling a symptom of Congress’ stricken conscience about not getting the people’s work done earlier in the session? Yes, if you still believe George Washington chopped down the cherry tree. Next year being a presidential election year, it’s really all about what political consultants call “positioning,” in which both parties lay the groundwork for the attacks and counterattacks to come in the battle for the White House and Congress.

It’s true that not much usually gets done by Congress in a presidential election year, so there’s a practical reason for the rush as well. But it’s mostly an exercise in generating fodder for next year’s partisan food fight.

So Congress, please, for the sake of us taxpayers, leave this business undone and go home for the holidays. We won’t accuse you of being a do-nothing Congress — we promise. And as we sit down for the annual feast on Thursday, we might even give thanks for it, and count it as one of our blessings.

Copyright 2003, The Gazette, a division of Freedom Colorado Information.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
It’s true that not much usually gets done by Congress in a presidential election year

Not much gets done in any year! I'd support a one-term limit for Congress and the President. All they do is campaign. I'm already seeing political ads for next year's election.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
There are many examples but more recently, I was struck by the soundbite on the so-called energy bill when Bush wanted $8b in tax incentives, Congress upped it to $16b and then the @%#$! lobbyists made sure it got to $20b.

I think the solution is to take away the @%#$! lobbyists' right to enact legislation on their own. It doesn't seem right tat they get to vote on the laws themselves, even after Congress is done with an issue.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I think the solution is to take away the @%#$! lobbyists' right to enact legislation on their own. It doesn't seem right tat they get to vote on the laws themselves, even after Congress is done with an issue.

Wait a minute. Aren't *you* a lobbyist?

[Buccaneer]

If Congress has set a limit, why would they get their hands greased anymore when enough is enough? Are they that pliable that it is the lobbyists whom they answer to? Oh that's right, I forgot.

[Buccaneer]

William, he was being sarcastic. I believe that it the hordes of lobbyists that controls Congress and legislation. We want it that way apparently since we want Congress to do so much but we chose not to care about the details.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
It's probably no wonder why I am turning more libertarian everyday (and will vote as thus). I am a firm believer that when Congress tries to "fix" something with legislation, they end up making things much worse and much, much costly for the taxpayers. This is not a recent phenomenon but has been going for a long time.

There are many examples but more recently, I was struck by the soundbite on the so-called energy bill when Bush wanted $8b in tax incentives, Congress upped it to $16b and then the @%#$! lobbyists made sure it got to $20b. It is not just this energy bill but all major legislation, ranging from one political extreme to the other, Democrats and Republicans/liberals and conservatives alike for each have their own expensive and self-serving lobbyists. Whether it's Big Labor, Big Greens, Big Oil, Big Steel, Big Defense, and worse of all, Big Lawyers.

Someone posted a reason for such bureaucracy - it is for regulation and compliance. Who then would hold them accountable? Seems like many voters just have their brain's turn to mush whenever a politician (or more accurately, a presidential candidate promises more of the same but only bigger and better). [i]Why do we constantly put up with this??[i]

By nature I tend to gravitate toward libertarian views. Perhaps we all do? Nevertheless, I recognize that we live in a society that would cease to function without order. You may argue that you have the right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't "hurt" anyone else, but where does society draw the line? Can I not stop a negligent parent from allowing their child to play Grand Theft Auto or sit in front of the television all day? Is there not an increased risk that this child will grow into a maladjusted adult?

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
William, he was being sarcastic. I believe that it the hordes of lobbyists that controls Congress and legislation. We want it that way apparently since we want Congress to do so much but we chose not to care about the details.

I know; so was I.

[cuervo72]

I want my lawn darts back. And I know there are others...

[ISiddiqui]

We won’t accuse you of being a do-nothing Congress — we promise.

They may not, but others sure will. Btw, the prescription drug bill was, basically, a good one.

[sabotai]

Originally posted by wbonnell
By nature I tend to gravitate toward libertarian views. Perhaps we all do? Nevertheless, I recognize that we live in a society that would cease to function without order.

What makes you think libertarianism = no order?

You may argue that you have the right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't "hurt" anyone else, but where does society draw the line?

How about at the point that I "hurt" someone else...and why does society get to choose what I do but I don't?

Can I not stop a negligent parent from allowing their child to play Grand Theft Auto or sit in front of the television all day? Is there not an increased risk that this child will grow into a maladjusted adult?

No, you can't. It's not your decision on how someone else chooses the raise their kids. And a kid playing video games and watching TV does not imply the parent is negligent. You may think it's not good, but it's not your kid. And no, I don't beleive that it does increase the risk that the kid will grow into a maladjusted adult. Maybe they won't grow up to be Einstein or Shakespeare...but then again, they weren't very "adjusted" either.

Someone might think a parent is being negligent by not forcing their kid to go to church. Someone might think a parent is being negligent by not making their kids hold a fork "properly". Someone might think a parent is being negligent by letting their kids play video games.

But, sorry, they're wrong. They just have a different opinion as to how a child should be raised. And if someone chooses to raise their kid a different way than you do, that does not mean they are being negligent.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Wil, I believe that it the hordes of lobbyists that controls Congress and legislation.

I think you're overstating it. If you look at Western Europe or California they seem to be entangled in the web much more.

[Rich1033]

Originally posted by cuervo72
I want my lawn darts back. And I know there are others...

Hey now, while at a friends house I had one of those thrown through my cheek when I was around 5 years old. I still have a small scar on my face from that.

[Tekneek]

The gap between the financially elite and the 'average person' is growing wider all the time. I read recently that the average compensation for a corporate CEO is 400x that of the average employee, which is higher than what was going on through the 1980s and 1990s. Lobbyists work for those with the money, generally speaking. Government listens to those with the money because they need that cash to line their campaign chests. Those with the money control the entire process. Meanwhile, those workers who are building up the new elite (corporate CEOs who did not even found their company or actually create anything) are being sold out for workers in India, Phillipines, and other nations, so that these executives can then double or triple their already exorbitant compensation packages. These are the folks who buy the favors from Congress, while the rest of us march slowly towards unemployment and lower paying service jobs...meaning we have even less say in our government than we did before.

The state of Georgia requires more signatures on a petition to get on a ballot than is required in Ukraine. We almost never have third party candidates here because of that. This ensures that the Republocrats keep their lock on this gravy train indefinitely, at least in this state. Nothing will change until a majority of individuals wake up to what is really going on in this country. It will not get better until people stop relying on the same big businesses for their news that are making the backroom deals in government buildings.

[JPhillips]

I may not agree with your alternative Buc, but I sure do agree that this energy bill is a giant cluster. It seems the only people happy with it are those getting handouts. The oil and gas Repubs get to give back to their contributors and the ethanol Dems get to give back to their's. This bill does nothing about making us more energy independent or making energy cheaper. At the end of the day this is nothing but a massive handout to campaign contributors.

This is why I believe strongly in split government. I just don't believe this bill would have been crafted in a split government. As soon as one party decides to abolish all control over federal spending we're in for a shitstorm. That's what the Repubs have decided to do, and they gave just enough to enough Dems to probably get this passed this week.

Everyone who votes for this bill should be ashamed.

[QuikSand]

I understand that lobbyists are basically the scum of the earth - I hear it enough that I start to believe it myself.

But let's look at what's going on here. Tom Daschle, to look at an easy example, represents a state who would benefit substantially from ethanol credits. I'm sure that the industry provides a substantial numbr of jobs and dollars to the SD economy.

The way it works now, there's doubtlessly some sleazy lobbyist who goes to Daschle and says "Hey, buddy, you know if we get that amendment into the energy bill, it could mean 3,000 more jobs to people in South Dakota!" Daschle is energized by this, and supports the amendment.

The purity-in-politics crowd cries foul! Special interests are ruining this country! The people are getting shafted by the moneyed interests! Woe!


What exactly did Daschle do wrong here? If it's true that the legislation would be good for the economy and the people of his state (you know, the people who elected him to serve) -- why shouldn't he be interested in the legislation? I understand that not everyone shares the political principles of Tom Daschle (who, incidentally, I myself find to be among the most loathsome people in the entire Congress)-- but what's wrong with Daschle stending up for the "special interests" of the people of South Dakota? Who else should he be supporting?


I confess that I sound a lot like Buccaneer on these issues sometimes, and in part that's why I post the devil's advocate position here some times. I've lost a lot of faith in the political system (and I'm a politicla insider by trade). But I generally don't agree that it's lobbyists (or the system that makes them possible/necessary) that is the problem.

Really, the biggest problems I have are with campaign financing (which, contrary to many people's beliefs, has not been "fixed" by the recent federal legislation). Where I really recoil is when the moneyed interests support a candidate financially, and then come calling for his or her support - when there may be no connection to the particular interests of the politicial or his or her constituents. That's really where I draw the line - and line up with Bucc spitting at the system.

Of course, if Americans ever actually voted against their own political representatives, there might be some semblance of public accountability in the federal political process. But these Congressmen run for office every two years, and how many of those seats really draw a bona fide challenge? (Answer: not nearly enough)

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Nothing will change until a majority of individuals wake up to what is really going on in this country. It will not get better until people stop relying on the same big businesses for their news that are making the backroom deals in government buildings.

Well, "they" are currently being entertained by the Michael Jackson debacle. Mainstream media and tabloids seem to have converged...

[Subby]

Reform campaign finance. Limit terms. That still won't make much difference. What does the common man know about reinsurance? Hydroelectricity? Genetically engineered corn?

Lobbyists are usually experts (or represent experts) in their particular field - so they are often relied upon by legislative or agency staffers to help write language that either becomes law or regulation. It is a terribly interdependent relationship.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by sabotai
What makes you think libertarianism = no order?



How about at the point that I "hurt" someone else...and why does society get to choose what I do but I don't?



No, you can't. It's not your decision on how someone else chooses the raise their kids. And a kid playing video games and watching TV does not imply the parent is negligent. You may think it's not good, but it's not your kid. And no, I don't beleive that it does increase the risk that the kid will grow into a maladjusted adult. Maybe they won't grow up to be Einstein or Shakespeare...but then again, they weren't very "adjusted" either.

Someone might think a parent is being negligent by not forcing their kid to go to church. Someone might think a parent is being negligent by not making their kids hold a fork "properly". Someone might think a parent is being negligent by letting their kids play video games.

But, sorry, they're wrong. They just have a different opinion as to how a child should be raised. And if someone chooses to raise their kid a different way than you do, that does not mean they are being negligent.

What if it is shown that video games strongly correlate to violent behavior?

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally posted by Subby
Reform campaign finance. Limit terms. That still won't make much difference. What does the common man know about reinsurance? Hydroelectricity? Genetically engineered corn?

Lobbyists are usually experts (or represent experts) in their particular field - so they are often relied upon by legislative or agency staffers to help write language that either becomes law or regulation. It is a terribly interdependent relationship.

Subby goes yard.

[clintl]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
I think you're overstating it. If you look at Western Europe or California they seem to be entangled in the web much more.

FWIW, lobbyists have very little to do with California's problems. Our voters are to blame for much of what has gone wrong for approving some really stupid initiatives that have made it nearly impossible to construct a budget. And for electing a string of bad governors (and Arnold may be on his way to joining that group, if his completely inept first week is any indication).

[albionmoonlight]

Having worked for a year in DC at a large law firm (I guess I am/was one of the "worse of all"), I have some insight into this problem.

The way I see it, government has gotten too big and too complex for the everyday Joe to follow without experts. To take one example (devoid of details, I am sorry to say because of client confidentiality rules). There was a proposed merger that was going to happen between two companies. There were special interests who were opposed to the merger and those who were for the merger. There was adminstrative actions surrounding the merger, as well as possible legislation over the horizon that would affect the merger (if passed). For a few months, I was spending about 20 hours a week researching the various administrative aspects of the merger ("administrative" is lawyer shorthand for government agency) so as to advise our client--one of the special interests.

First, nothing that our client wanted was illegal, or untoward, or even bad. Indeed, as a corporation, it had a duty to do what it could to stay competitive. Far from being "evil," they were doing what every good capitalist should. Second, I was a (supposedly) highly trained professional who was specializing in adminstrative law. I had the limitless resources of a large law firm behind me. And I spent over 100 hours researching one aspect of one potential merger. That amount of work was necessary to properly advise the client.

My point (which I don't know if I made or not) is that it is simply impossible for the everyday Joe to follow the workings of the government--even if he wanted to. If one of you on the board took an interest in a complicated social issue, I contend that it would be impossible for you to learn all you need to know about it to be effective. No one person can anymore. The legislative and administrative state is simply too large and complex.

I don't think that lobbyists are evil. I don't think that special interests are evil. They do, however, have the resources to access the system in a way that is simply impossible for you or me to do anymore. It's not a good system, but I can't think of one with which to replace it either.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by wbonnell
What if it is shown that video games strongly correlate to violent behavior?

Thats a big "if"

What if I could show playing football leads to more violent behavior..

[Buccaneer]

I agree with all posts here, including what QS and albion and Subby said. Lobbyists are an easy (and obvious) target but the as QS said, they are not the cause of the problem. Being experts as they are (and generally looking out for only their client's interest), the consequences are very convaluted (sp?) complex legislation that must involve hordes of lawyers to sustain and ends up justifying a bureaucracy without providing the target benefits in relation to the cost. This does not include the multitudes of conflicting legislation and articles.

I think we grown to this because because again, we expect the federal govt to be involved in and to fix every problem through legislation and ultimately through the courts. Regardless of the noble intention in the first place, we should fully be aware of the consequences of any legislation. Do they really benefit those that the PR folks said will benefit or do the select few get more than lion's share of benefits at a cost to everyone? The Patriot Act is another example. Apparently most of you were in strong favor of it being passed because your representatives wholeheartedly supported it and celebrated its passage. The devil is in the details, isn't it? The same thing for the Medicare bill, the Energy bill, etc.

Being libertarian-minded (which I see as the antithesis of socialism), the govt cannot make things better through legislation because of the complexity and multitudes of conflicting self-interest. Since the govt does not create any revenues, funds either must be raised in form of additional taxes or shifted from other sources. And in the end, can we really justify the cost in term of benefits? The market can better do this because we, as the consumers, can choose whether is something (a product) is worth paying for. There is no mandate. The same thing with charitable giving. If a cause is worthy enough, then it will be supported. If it is not, then the govt should not force it upon us against the desires of the people.

Finally, have we forgetten this?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

[sabotai]

Originally posted by wbonnell
What if it is shown that video games strongly correlate to violent behavior?

What kind of violent behaivor? Immediate, short term violent behaivor or long-term, "always mean and violent" violent behaivor? If it's the former, a lot of things can cause such a thing. If it's the later, good luck trying to prove that.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by clintl
FWIW, lobbyists have very little to do with California's problems. Our voters are to blame for much of what has gone wrong for approving some really stupid initiatives that have made it nearly impossible to construct a budget. And for electing a string of bad governors (and Arnold may be on his way to joining that group, if his completely inept first week is any indication).

I was going more for 'Special Interests' rather than 'Lobbyists'. California is a good example of how populist measures can backfire. Instead of Lobbyists paying off/funding politicians to pass their bills, now they just put the initiative on the ballot and spend the money on advertising.

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Being libertarian-minded (which I see as the antithesis of socialism), the govt cannot make things better through legislation because of the complexity and multitudes of conflicting self-interest. Since the govt does not create any revenues, funds either must be raised in form of additional taxes or shifted from other sources. And in the end, can we really justify the cost in term of benefits? The market can better do this because we, as the consumers, can choose whether is something (a product) is worth paying for. There is no mandate. The same thing with charitable giving. If a cause is worthy enough, then it will be supported. If it is not, then the govt should not force it upon us against the desires of the people.

I'm pretty much a libertarian too, but there is a point where federal regulation is necessary and beneficial. The model you're using assumes that the public has the information, time, and will to learn and know what is going on on all the issues. Much as I agree that we have gone too far with regulation and have a huge bureaucracy, I just don't think swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side will solve these problems.

[Buccaneer]

I agree, but we have to start thinking the other way instead of apathetically accepting the status quo. I favor a gradual reduction in the bureaucracy and programs and legislation but if the majority of the country voices their opinion that is the way to go, then it can be start. I don't know much about the welfare reform whether that truly reduced such dependencies but that could be an example. Problem is, the powers that be and those who feed it demands that we continue the growth of the bureaucracies and power in the hands of the few and we go along with it.

[CAsterling]

Just remember when you guys finally have had enough, the wonderful democratic co-operative that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will welcome you back into you rightful place as a colony !!

[Glengoyne]

QS, in regard to why Daschle shouldn't support legislation that will continue to shore up the economy of his state. I would submit that asking the federal government to throw millions of dollars into a program that most reputable studies have shown to be worthless, just because it benefits your state, should be a scandal the size of Teapot Dome.

I feel the same way about the Ag bill. For a few years subsidies were being cut back, but with the last ag bill our representatives decided to regress, and get back in line at the trough. Something a lot of people missed is that Hastert even reverted some of the House's internal bylaws regarding perks and junkets. Those same internal bylaws Newt Gingrich put in place as part of the contract with America.

I hate the notion that campaign finance reform is considered a threat to free speach, as I consider the current system nothing more than legalized bribery. I want full complete public funding for all political campaings.

I want to take it a step further. I'd like to repeal, the amendment that allows us to vote for our senators. I'd rather have them appointed by governors, that way at least a few of them would act for the good of the republic, rather than for the good of their reelection.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
QS, in regard to why Daschle shouldn't support legislation that will continue to shore up the economy of his state. I would submit that asking the federal government to throw millions of dollars into a program that most reputable studies have shown to be worthless, just because it benefits your state, should be a scandal the size of Teapot Dome.

Then Sen. Byrd would have been the most scandal-ridden senator in the history of our country.

[Buccaneer]

Also reminds me of another quip from years back. I believe it was the Osprey Helicopter (if it was called a helicopter). The Pentagon did not want it built, the military think tanks did not want it built and the armed forces would have had no use for it. Thus it was eliminated from the budget. But guess what?

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
I hate the notion that campaign finance reform is considered a threat to free speach, as I consider the current system nothing more than legalized bribery. I want full complete public funding for all political campaings.

I think that was voted for here in Massachusetts a few years ago. I don't remember exactly what happened, but the legislature refused to fund it and I think it got scrapped. People in power just don't want to lose it. Just look at the gerrymandering of districts to the point where almost none are vulnerable.

The way the political system is set up, nationally my vote doesn't matter at all. Unless they nominate Al Sharpton, Massachusetts is voting Democratic for President. Kerry and Kennedy are firmly ensconced as Senators until they retire/die. My representative, Marty Meehan, who actually doesn't seem that bad, has been in for a number of terms and is basically biding his time until he can run for Senator. The upside is that I never have to see campaign commercials.

[Ryche]

I want to take it a step further. I'd like to repeal, the amendment that allows us to vote for our senators. I'd rather have them appointed by governors, that way at least a few of them would act for the good of the republic, rather than for the good of their reelection.

Then your senators will be answering almost solely to their party. The senate would be more partisan than ever.

[sabotai]

I want to take it a step further. I'd like to repeal, the amendment that allows us to vote for our senators. I'd rather have them appointed by governors, that way at least a few of them would act for the good of the republic, rather than for the good of their reelection.

Yes, they would still act for the good of a reelection, the reelection of the governor that appointed them.

[Glengoyne]

I don't know that senators appointed by a governor could be more partisan than they are now. Once appointed, they would be in office for six years. Since most(all?)governors are elected every four years, many senators would likely not be re-appointed. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist at heart, but I think a good number of appointed senators would be more statesmen than politicians.

[Glengoyne]

Dola,

I also should point out that I pointed to Daschle because QS pointed him out. There are any number of examples of pork barrel politicians on both sides of the aisle. Even a cursory examination of the Energy bill reveals a fair share of both parties representatives lined up at the trough.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
I don't know that senators appointed by a governor could be more partisan than they are now. Once appointed, they would be in office for six years. Since most(all?)governors are elected every four years, many senators would likely not be re-appointed. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist at heart, but I think a good number of appointed senators would be more statesmen than politicians.

Not really sure how correct this analogy is, but in Europe they seem to be doing this with the EU and so far the results have been less than spectacular. I'm sure there are many other factors, but if I don't trust the Governor, why should I trust him to appoint good people to office?

On a different note, I'm wondering whether you think Robert Byrd was a good senator? He appears to be the King of Pork-Barrel Spending, great for his state but bad for the nation. So if you lived in West Virginia would you vote for him? I'm not sure.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
Not really sure how correct this analogy is, but in Europe they seem to be doing this with the EU and so far the results have been less than spectacular. I'm sure there are many other factors, but if I don't trust the Governor, why should I trust him to appoint good people to office?

On a different note, I'm wondering whether you think Robert Byrd was a good senator? He appears to be the King of Pork-Barrel Spending, great for his state but bad for the nation. So if you lived in West Virginia would you vote for him? I'm not sure.

Regarding the comparison with the EU. I was unaware they were using such a system, but at any rate, aren't the EU representatives pretty much figure heads after closer inspection?

I was actually refering to the way we used to populate the senate before 1915 or so. The 15th or 16th amendment(maybe the 17th or was that prohibition?) called for senators to be elected by popular vote.

Regarding Robert Byrd. I can't honestly give an opinion because I haven't really followed him along. I would say that based solely on a history of pork barrel politics, I would likely not be a fan. That and wasn't he formerly a head mucky muck in the Klan? If it matters I hated Jessie Helms, and he was also a champion of home state politics.

[Greyroofoo]

i think voters should decide how much congress get paid

[JPhillips]

Check out this chart and report on pork spending over the past ten years. Yes I know its a Democrat report, but the numbers are clear. The problem here is that the party of small government has become the party of mega-spending government. There is no force pushing for restraint.

Some of the examples in the report are fun too, Delay spending a million on golf for kids is a favorite of mine.

Pork Spenders

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips: The numbers are not clear when only an incomplete picture is presented.

Can someone complete the picture and put up a graph of just Sen. Byrd? I am willing to bet that he alone has brought in more pork than all of the GOP. Lol.

[albionmoonlight]

One of the things to watch out for in discussions of this nature is equating the principles of an ideology with the principals who practice that ideology.

Republicans and Democrats each have good ideas in their statements of ideology (neither party to my knowledge has a platform plank that involves "wasting taxpayer money for the personal gain of our politicians"). However, both parties are full of high-ranking members who personally betray those high ideals when the rubber meets the road.

The truth, of course, is more subtle than "all politicians suck." But it is worth keeping in mind that just because a Republican has wasted money does not mean that the ideal of more efficient government is a bad one. On the flip side, just because a Democrat or two (or 30) has had trouble keeping his pants on does not mean that the ideals of free speech and the ability to peacably petition the government for the redress of grievances are unworthy.

[GrantDawg]

Let's just face it. The System can't be fixed, and this country would be much better off if it named me Supreme Ruler.

[Buccaneer]

Let me share an experience with lobbying/special interests and the limited role I believe they should have.

About 10 years ago, I worked with an attorney who was also a ‘lobbyist’ in changing Colorado’s Open Records Act. After formulating a strategy and proposed changes/additions (that was where I came in), he then worked through the Colorado Municipal League which had a direct pipeline into the State legislature. The laws were already on the books but it needed to be completely revised (at least the part dealing with maps and data). Our attorney with support from the CML did the leg work in educating the legislators and doing the documentations necessary to get the changes made. It was successful and ultimately appropriate because it simply clarified the manner in which public entities can provide geographic data for the benefit of the public.

Conversely, a later effort was brought to our attention in the role the State should play in regulating fees and method of geographic products in land development. Even though it was the CML that raised the issue, we worked through them to completely eradicate this idea. The reason was simply that with many of Colorado’s cities being Home Rule, local laws take precedent over state laws in matters of local issues. And in this particular local issue, we took it one step further in not only reducing fees but in providing better and more open access to data (and our review process) so that the private developers can perform better and more cost effective. The value of our products is based on the inherent cost to the marketplace, not in artificially enforcing regulations and demands to restrict access and review of data, which tends to be the unfortunate mindset of many local govt staffers and powers-that-be.

I find it interesting that it (lobbying/special interest) does become a two-way street. It does scare me at the amount of effort the State govt wants to enforce its power onto Local govts as well as the Federal govt onto State govts. And that many are willing to go along with more centralization of power and using such ‘tyrannical’ powers (Jefferson’s words) in over-regulating and over-protecting. Abuses will be made in the marketplace but abuses would also will be made just as much in a regulatory govt. except we have more direct say in one than the other.

Just some rambling thoughts and experiences.

[Buccaneer]

albion: It's called "Potomac Fever".

[Tekneek]

"The party of small government".... Hahahah.

People actually think there is a substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans when you really dig deep? Nothing will change, really, until we vote a different party into the majority of both the House and Senate, and even then we have to infiltrate the governorships and state legislatures with people who aren't career Republocrats.

[BishopMVP]

I definitely don't like most of Bush's budgetary policies. His tax cuts, especially the child tax credit seemed to work, but you need to couple that with a reduction or at least a slowdown in spending. I know it's not just him, but he seems to be just buying off everyone he can in the 20 or so states that matter. He's big government's best friend since LBJ. Too bad he'll be running against a Dean or Clark rather than someone like John McCain.

[AENeuman]

Buc, you sound like my father, who just turned 70 this month.
"Abuses will be made in the marketplace but abuses would also will be made just as much in a regulatory govt." Not sure if you can say that with authority, esp. with ERON and Walmart, and Major League Baseball. It seems you assume that in the end business will act in the best interest of the community and the gov't will not. If the lobbiest are a major source of evil, and they are funded by business, then how are we to expect things to be better without regulation?
By the way, parents do not chose to raise their kids in front of the TV. Peace and quite via TV, limited interaction (dinner/homework/etc) and displacing responsibility to teachers, happen because they are the path of least resistance, not because of a conscious choice made that what they are doing is on in best interest of their child.

[Buccaneer]

I don't assume that. On the contrary, I assume govt will not act in the best interest of the public any more than businesses and organizations. The point is that we apprarently have more democratic control over one than the other. You site some bad examples in the private sector but choose not to site the overwhelming number of good examples and the direct contributions many companies and charities make to local and regional communities? Bigger bang for the buck and more democratic driven.

[AENeuman]

Not sure what the diffence is between the gov't using my tax money to fund charities and starbucks charging me 5 dollars for coffee so they can give to some charitey and still not effect their profits.
Hard to say Walmart and the like is a small anything, esp when it controls so much of the economy. Will the 1000 ma and pa stores who give 5% to charity, be around in 5 years? Even then, will they sell cheaper wiggets?