Bloggers 1, Smoke-Filled Room 0

MarkusQ writes "A few days ago a bi-partisan bill (PDF) to create a searchable on-line database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans, financial assistance, earmarks and other such pork was put on 'secret hold' using a procedure that does not appear to be mentioned in the Constitution or in the Senate bylaws. This raised the ire of bloggers left and right and started an all out bi-partisan effort to expose the culprit by process of elimination. As it turns out it was our old friend the right honorable Senator from Alaska, Mr. 'Series of Tubes', Ted 'Bridge to Nowhere' Stevens."

Comments

Ackthpt's Theorem

[ackthpt]

It is said: Power corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely.

My theorem: The longer any party or group remains in power the closer they come to corrupt.

While some may draw a bead on Mr. Stevens and his 37 years in office. Remember pork is often a reward for having been loyal at some point. It's not simply Sen. Ted Stevens rolling up his sleeves for a reach into the Pork Barrel, but his reward for long, loyal service to his contemporaries. There's doubtless a bit of influence due to his seniority, but he's been a good soldier when his party has needed some. We can expect a lot of red faces when same bi-partisan muck-rakers get their hands on the online database and equally glib Senators and Representatives have to answer for decades of funny business which has passed beneath the radar in a long game of "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine."

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[cmburns69]

It is said: Power corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely.

My theorem: The longer any party or group remains in power the closer they come to corrupt.

I agree wholeheartedly. My new policy on voting is to always vote out an incumbent, unless I've been especially happy with his performance. If the whole country did that (especially on the national level, but also on the local level), I believe we'd have a lot fewer issues with corrupt politicians.

But then again, what to I know... I'm just a lowly working class citizen.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

What's sad is that "Uncle Ted" isn't dumb (Alaskans call him that, as in rich uncle). He could be using his years of experience being a real statesman instead of just trying to rake in more geld for oil-rich Alaska (it's the state that pays you a dividend to live there you know). Even the Dem's King of Pork, Senator Byrd of VA, stands up for individual constitutional rights all the time. Stevens just grabs tax dollars and picks his nose.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Lijemo]

It is said: Power corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I would argue that a more accurate saying would be: "power attracts the corrupt. Absolute power attracts the corrupt irresistably".

The longer any party or group remains in power the closer they come to corrupt.

...because that means the corrupt have had that much longer to maneuver their way into power within the party or group. Changing ruling parties/groups frequently means a lot of corrupt power-brokering ends up being wasted maneuvering to power within a group that no longer has any externally.

Or as my great grandfather liked to say, "political parties are like old socks: if you don't change them often enough, they get so they smell"

Having just two isn't that much better. Because "the corrupt" can do well for themselves by maneuvering to power within either one of them.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Dan Slotman]

We can expect a lot of red faces when same bi-partisan muck-rakers get their hands on the online database

After the 2004 election, I have great faith in the voters' ability to ignore incompetence and corruption.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[DaveJay]

Quick note: in theory that might be true, but then in theory if this happened on a regular basis, everyone would concentrate EVEN MORE on getting elected, and do EVEN LESS for the people once they got in, because they'd know that re-election was unlikely if not impossible -- even if they did a good job.

The ability to be re-elected is supposed to be a check on such behavior; it is supposed to incentivize good performance by offering an extension. Unfortunately, when the majority doesn't care enough about what's being done in office to know a person's track record, that incentive isn't worth much.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[MindStalker]

As he said, "unless I've been especially happy with his performance"
Of course personally I'm most happy when they pass as few laws as possible, unless they are to reduce the governments power or unact some stupid law.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Drishmung]

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887

cite

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[ackthpt]

After the 2004 election, I have great faith in the voters' ability to ignore incompetence and corruption.

You make a valid point.

I watched all three debates and Bush came off as bumbling as Bullwinkle. He scored a couple points, but largely looked ill-equipped for the job. He was re-elected anyway.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[jandrese]

Senator Byrd is from WV, not VA.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

After the 2004 election, I have great faith in manipulated elections to be misinterpreted as voters' ability to ignore incompetence and corruption.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[MrSenile]

Yes, for we all know it's much better for new politicions who are currently wheeling and dealing with everyone around them to be able to survive the shark infested waters of politics and are willing to kiss, scrape, and bend over to anyone in seniority than it is to have an old shark in the pool who's already played all these games and no longer has a need to.

So, we have the young and corruptable, or the old and corrupted.

Solution is probably to remove all political parties and hire a bunch of 'the common people', but that also won't work as the economy would take a nose dive and any political agenda would be shirt-tailed.

Whatever we do, it's not like we have a choice. Just grab the jar of vasaline.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Quick note: in theory that might be true, but then in theory if this happened on a regular basis, everyone would concentrate EVEN MORE on getting elected, and do EVEN LESS for the people once they got in, because they'd know that re-election was unlikely if not impossible -- even if they did a good job.

The funny thing about that is that what most people term Pork Spending, IS doing something for the local people and businesses. You can't tell me that a $223 million project like Ted Steven's "Bridge to Nowhere" didn't mean a hell of a lot of local jobs for an area of only 8050 people- not to mention the jobs it would have created on that little tiny island building vacation McMansions for people from the lower 48 once the island was joined to the airport.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Gemini_25_RB]

Being under 18, I couldn't vote in 2004. However, I was not surprised to see Bush win again. Not because he seemed especially good during the debates, or had a sound platform. It seems to me that Kerry's position was so vague that it would be hard to vote for him in good confidence. And on top of that, Kerry was scary looking, not monkey-ish.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

"because they're giving out condoms to kids in public school!"

-One lady who told Howard Dean why she voted for Bush in 2004.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[hpavc]

Results based government? Sounds good.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[pboulang]

Isn't it the job of a representative to act in the best interest of his constituents, yet the job of a senator is to act in the best interests of the country?

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[The Mad Debugger]

Problem is that Pork is often benefits for one's constituents (bridges, defense contracts, etc.), so there's not often incentive for a politician to cut pork. Often pork is the kind of stuff they point to in their stump speeches as examples of their accomplishments. They're bringing $$$ to their voters at the expense of other constituencies.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[ehrichweiss]

Power corrupts...

Absolute power is kinda neat.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[deanj]

Surprised it wasn't the KING of pork, Robert Byrd.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Savage-Rabbit]

After the 2004 election, I have great faith in the voters' ability to ignore incompetence and corruption.

The scary thing is that US political weasels actually look set to dethrone their Italian colleagues in the competition for being the most incompetent, nepotistic and corrupt. Say what you will, when your competition is Berlusconi, that's not an easy thing to accomplish.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

"Power corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Very true. And that is why it will be only a matter of time before the "blogosphere" becomes just as ruthless and corrupt as the power structures it presently confronts. Soon the internets will be so infested with bought-and-paid-for astroturfers that it will be impossible to discriminate between honest opinion and slimy propaganda. The line between the two will blur into a fine pink mist.

Can anything be done to stop this from happening? No. Oh well, back to playing Dead Rising LOL

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[MBCook]

I think what really needs to happen is a fix to redistricting. Both parties drew things up to make their incumbants as safe as possible. Some state (or maybe a few) have gone through fights on this and decided to (IIRC) automically re-draw districts every 10 years by computer in such a way as to make them as competitive as possible (or something like that). That way you can't get these idiots who sit there for 40 years and lose touch with reality.

Term limits would work also. Two terms for the Senate, 6 for the house. To continue past that you must get 85% of the vote or higher.

The problem with both ideas is that the very people who would vote to put the law in place are the very people who DON'T want the laws to be passed. It's a conflict of interest. As far as I know there is no other way to get them into law other than a Supreme Court case. I don't think the President could dictate that (that would give him too much power over the legislature). People can't submit laws for congress and they can't get it put on the national ballot as a refferendum. At least, as far s I know.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[ctr2sprt]

The funny thing about that is that what most people term Pork Spending, IS doing something for the local people and businesses.

Which is the problem with pork: it does something for the local people and businesses.

The money ought to come from Alaska's state budget. I hope that's obvious. But it's a lot harder to find $223 million in a state's budget than in the fed's. Pretty much the only way Alaska could come up with that money is to increase taxes. There's no way that Alaskan taxpayers would approve a tax increase for such a stupid cause. So instead the politicians try to get the money from the fed's budget, where $223 mil is a drop in the bucket. It's essentially "free money" for a state like Alaska: of that entire sum, I'd be surprised if more than $1 mil came from Alaska due to its low population and relatively small economy.

Remember also that if all pork were eliminated, the feds could lower the income tax rate and not "lose money" (i.e. the deficit wouldn't increase). States could then institute or increase local income taxes without affecting the overall tax burden at all. The added revenues could be directed to improving schools, paying cops better wages, fixing the roads, etc. And because it's local politicians making those decisions and not Congressmen who've never even been to Alaska, the politicians can be more easily held accountable. (If a Senator from Massachusetts votes to reduce federal funding to the state of Alaska, there's absolutely nothing that Alaskan voters can do about it.)

I do get the impression that your tongue was at least partly in your cheek, but I wanted to make sure folks know why pork is bad. If you look at the list of pork projects, none of the seem bad... until you start to wonder why a taxpayer in Minnesota should have to pay to maintain local roads in Pennsylvania.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

All elected officials should act in the best interests of their constituents- and that IS the best interests of the country as a whole. To do any less incites rebellion and civil war.

The problem comes in when the pork doesn't go to the consituents- but instead to a K-Street contractor- which is why we need this database, to see who gets the contract. The Pork itself isn't that bad. It's who gets the contract that can turn it bad.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[larry bagina]

Prior to the 17th amendment, the senate was to act in the best interest of their respectives states, which would act as a counterpoint to the popularly-elected congress.

Changing to direct election also changed them to be beholden to their constituents.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue that a more accurate saying would be: "power attracts the corrupt. Absolute power attracts the corrupt irresistably".

I dunno, look at the god Yahweh prior to the new testament. For omnipotent and supposedly omnibenevolent being, he sure was an asshole.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

the closer they come to corrupt.

I think you mean, the more corrupt they become :)

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

and if everyone does it, any money they make off their pork is more than offset by everyone elses. There's no reasonable defense for pork.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[MillionthMonkey]

Quick note: in theory that might be true, but then in theory if this happened on a regular basis, everyone would concentrate EVEN MORE on getting elected, and do EVEN LESS for the people once they got in, because they'd know that re-election was unlikely if not impossible -- even if they did a good job.

Only if you exchange one ridiculous extreme for the other. There is a 98% reelection rate for incumbents, but there's no reason it has to be 2% either.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

Or as my great grandfather liked to say, "political parties are like old socks: if you don't change them often enough, they get so they smell"

Ah, the homespun, everyman wisdom of great-grandpappy. Of course, back in those days, the 10-mile, uphill walks in the snow gave people a lot of time to think. They just don't make pithy sayings the way they used to.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

A growing economy is good for everybody- no matter who originally benefits- and is well worth the inflation that it costs.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Minwee]

On the other hand, history has shown that the majority of voters are most happy when handed small bags of (their own) money shortly before election time.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Skim123]

How about Congressional term limits? Let them serve, say, only two terms.

What would be nice, too, is if they were required after their two terms to spend at least four years in their home state. You know, get them and their family out of DC. Too much nepotism and cronyism in that city.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[regular_gonzalez]

An economy that won't get any bigger without investment. By the time they're done with that deal, the taxes on the McMansions alone will provide far more than the $223 mil. Which is why I say people against pork are rather shortsighted. Taking your ideas to their logical conclusion, we should give all of our money to the federal government, as it will invest it more wisely than any of us mere mortals can. Pretty ingenious idea; I wonder why it's never been tried before...

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Mr. Slippery]

Prior to the 17th amendment, the senate was to act in the best interest of their respectives states, which would act as a counterpoint to the popularly-elected congress.

Not of their respective states, but of the legistlatures of those states. Which legislatures were, by the time of Amendment XVII, terribly corrupt, and often subject to deadlock (forty-five deadlocks in the selection of Senators occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, according to our friends at Wikipedia).

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

Well, shit, let's just all get higher-paying jobs with the government then.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[ethernetmonkey]

How would your employer survive if every 2 years they fired an entire department and started over from scratch? They would get little to nothing done, and the same concept applies to government.

I am not sure that the logical consequence of your policy is what you think it is.

Everything in moderation, except business, love and war.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument isn't against this sort of spending, it's against using the federal budget to do it instead of the state.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Taking your ideas to their logical conclusion, we should give all of our money to the federal government, as it will invest it more wisely than any of us mere mortals can. Pretty ingenious idea; I wonder why it's never been tried before.

Mere mortals only invest in what benefits them. Unfortuneately, so do congresscritters- to do this right the voice of the voters has to be stronger than the voice of the lobbyist. Until that happens- well, no economic system works very well.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, shit, let's just all get higher-paying jobs with the government then.

It seems to be the only opportunity left, unless you were born with a trust fund in a family where stocks make up a significant portion of family income. Certainly private industry is no longer an opportunity for the majority of Americans.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Mr. Slippery]

You know, get them and their family out of DC. Too much nepotism and cronyism in that city.

Right, nepotism and cronyism are unknown in the rest of the nation, or in state and local governments. Chuckle.

I do think the idea of a limit on consecutive terms is worth consideration. No limit on how many terms in the Senate you could serve in your life, but after three or four in a row you can't run for re-election for the next term.

Hey, after they hit this limit, let them run against the other Senator from their state in two or four years, now that'd be interesting.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, then let the state print it's own money and spend it. That would be the easy way to cut the feds out of the loop. You could even pass a law that says your money will not be honored in other states, keeping it all at home. The money belongs to the feds, that's why such large investments must come from the people who own the money.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[polymath69]

Pretty much the only way Alaska could come up with that money is to increase taxes.

On some level that's true, but is it an informed opinion? Are you aware that basically Alaska doesn't have any taxes?

In fact, Alaska gives away money to residents due to its huge oil surplus.

But they still want everybody else's money for their pork.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

> pork is good- it provides local jobs

Why should I, Joe California Taxpayer, have to pay some Alaskan ironworker to build a bridge no one wants or needs?

I have no problem with many public works projects, but I draw the line at simply building useless crap to keep people busy.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[pboulang]

Not at all, I think there is a LOT of leeway on certain things such as military bases and airports and whatnot (as an example) where choosing one district over another can make zero difference to the country, but impacts locals significantly.

The problem, and why it is called pork, is that there are ridiculously local issues/constraints attached to significant, real bills.

I think Obama should sponser a bill to change the name from the Ted Stevens Bridge to Troll Bridge.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[deathy_epl ccs]

I'd be surprised if more than $1 mil came from Alaska due to its low population and relatively small economy.

Apparently you haven't heard about that thing they've got in Alaska called Prudhoe Bay? Giant oil fields, biggest oil field in the nation in fact... more than twice the size of the East Texas field.

Yeah, Alaska doesn't contribute a damn thing to the economy of the United States with it's weak economy.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[pboulang]

ah, right.. guess my high school history textbook wasn't updated recently enough ;)

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Why should I, Joe California Taxpayer, have to pay some Alaskan ironworker to build a bridge no one wants or needs?

Actually, certain people do need and want it- but here's the 2 ways it benefits you, personally:
1. Gives you a place to retire to when they build those McMansions on the island, conviently located within easy travel of an airport.
2. Prevents Alaska's economy from going so far down in the deep end that the Alaskans head south to take your job away.

I have no problem with many public works projects, but I draw the line at simply building useless crap to keep people busy.

Read the full description of the bridge- it wasn't just to keep people busy, it was to provide a link between several acres of developable land and the airport. The other bridge in the same bill had the same purpose- giving Anchorage a place to expand into. You're from California, you should be familiar with suburban sprawl.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[brian.glanz]

While this concept is, as moderated "interesting" in some respect, it has been controlled for in famous and fundamental experiments which to the contrary, strongly support that it is in fact power which corrupts. The Stanford Prison Experiment is certainly the most famous and instructive. For recent interpretations of this and related work, try consulting Zimbardo.

I've spent a lot of time around politicans, their staff, and their active supporters, at the national level in the U.S. Most people get into politics at this level with altruistic intentions. I am political and partisan personally, but however entirely I disagree with the other side's interpretation of the world, I respect that people on the other side are involved because they truly believe they are in the right. No, I'm serious. New Members of Congress especially come in with full heads of do-gooder steam.

It doesn't take long for most of them to compromise so much that, from the outside looking in, it would appear they have been corrupted. Some never slide all the way into vote trading, nepotistic business-as-usual, but they are in the minority and either end up as failures or highly respected successes. IOW the mainstream, beaten path in a position of power is a corrupt one.

Most people entering any path will walk right up the middle of it, even if they are natural leaders. Newton's first law: it's not only mechanics ... and power: it corrupts; when absolute, absolutely. BG

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[deathy_epl ccs]

Allow me to append that Stevens is still an asshole, though.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[beef curtains]

Truer words were never spoken...not in the last few minutes, anyway

I never seem to have mod points when I want them most, because I'd love to show your comment some "Insightful" lovin'.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

> Actually, certain people do need and want it

yeah, a handful of contractors and construction workers. I know some out-of-work construction workers. Can I get a couple hundred million federal dollars too?

> but here's the 2 ways it benefits you, personally

You can give 220 million to anyone and come up with some reasons it might benefit me. But I'm not moving to Alaska when I retire, and if 220 million is the only thing keeping Alaska from crumbling and sending their teeming thousands to California to take all our jobs away with their superior Alaskan hardiness and bear wrestling skills, I contend that we've already lost that particular battle.

Call me back when we've got a depression like we did in the 30s. We can talk about pointless public works projects then.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

VA, WV - all those little states down there look alike....

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Not at all, I think there is a LOT of leeway on certain things such as military bases and airports and whatnot (as an example) where choosing one district over another can make zero difference to the country, but impacts locals significantly.

Then that isn't "zero difference to the country". If more locals benefit in one place than another, that can affect all sorts of other things in interstate trade as the workers in that district spend money. Anyplace that the federal government spends money, creates consumers for other businesses.

The problem, and why it is called pork, is that there are ridiculously local issues/constraints attached to significant, real bills.

At times, yes- if you take only a short term/local/single subject view. But the point is while such a view is tempting, it's blinding you to the forest fire for examining a single tree. The real problem with pork ain't in the local people who benefit- because they simply become consumers for the rest of the nation. It's the people who take federal money who don't become consumers that are the problem.

I think Obama should sponser a bill to change the name from the Ted Stevens Bridge to Troll Bridge.

Might be good- it would certainly point out another obvious way to fund it!

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[SanityInAnarchy]

Wrong. You can have good, powerful people, although it's rare. There are fairly uncorruptible people.

Here's a quote from Dune that said it best, I think:

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickely addicted.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[SanityInAnarchy]

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickely addicted.

This is a direct quote from Chapterhouse Dune.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

yeah, a handful of contractors and construction workers. I know some out-of-work construction workers. Can I get a couple hundred million federal dollars too?

Talk to your congresscritters- Peter Defazio in my state, in conjunction with my state senator from Beaverton, got us the federal matching funds for the Oregon Transportation Investment Act III, which put construction companies across Oregon which had been sitting idle since the Silicon Forest boom of the 1990s back to work- and financed an upgrade of information technology that got me back to work after the depression of 2001.

You can give 220 million to anyone and come up with some reasons it might benefit me.

Yes, so why would you object to the Alaskans in particular?

But I'm not moving to Alaska when I retire,

Millions of your fellow Californicators do- driving those of us who like the rural Pacific Northwest lifestyle crazy.

and if 220 million is the only thing keeping Alaska from crumbling and sending their teeming thousands to California to take all our jobs away with their superior Alaskan hardiness and bear wrestling skills, I contend that we've already lost that particular battle.

We're damned close to losing that battle- and it's not just Alaska either. Now that the housing bubble is bursting, we'll be damned lucky not to have a repeat of 1931 on our hands.

Call me back when we've got a depression like we did in the 30s. We can talk about pointless public works projects then.

Aparently you've missed the recent news.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

> Talk to your congresscritters

No, because I realize that useless pork is like a plague unto our nation.

> Yes, so why would you object to the Alaskans in particular?

Because those reasons are spurious and insufficient

> Aparently you've missed the recent news.

Oh please. I'm fully aware that we're looking at some serious economic nastiness coming down the pipe (all the more reason to not spend $220M on useless bullshit), but to equate it with the Great Depression just makes you look silly.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[RobertLTux]

the biggest reason that pork is bad is the one that Muslims and Jews can agree on

Its just not Kosher

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Ana10g]

Yep, Gerrymandering is, and has been, a very large problem in this country for a very long time. See Wikipedia for more. If there was a way to fix it, I'll vote for it. Unfortunately, to fix it requires the consent of the bodies benefitting from it, which pretty much means that nothing will ever happen.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[sethstorm]

Very true. And that is why it will be only a matter of time before the "blogosphere" becomes just as ruthless and corrupt as the power structures it presently confronts. Soon the internets will be so infested with bought-and-paid-for astroturfers that it will be impossible to discriminate between honest opinion and slimy propaganda. The line between the two will blur into a fine pink mist.

This reminds me of a well known right wing Echo Chamber. That, and the entire Pajamas Media network make The Rolling Swinebucket's slashvertisment articles seem tame.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptable.

Frank Herbert Dune novels

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Fordiman]

That may be true, but Stevens, historically, is the undisputed King of Pork. He and his cronies (those who've helped him out in his porking) have their asses to cover.

Why Stevens would let himself get caught like this... I'm thinking the Smoking Room just decided, in the wake of Stevens' recent political tribulations (ie, tubes, bridge, and getting second place in the 'Coot-off'), that he's lost his usefulness. They then paid an intern to talk, and the rest is news.

When I say Smoking Room, of course, I just mean one of the teams of Good Ol' Boys that collect together in Congress and the Senate. You thought high school was cliquey, yeah?

High school is cliquey because the power of popular high school students seems very real to other high school students; it becomes an 'Us v. Them' situation, with many different groups of 'us' and 'them'. In Congress, this is amplified, as real power exists.

So, yeah. There's republicans, there's democrats. Then there's the 'middle of the roaders', the 'public-interesters', the 'pork guys', etc. In fact, there's likely several groups of each of these (especially the pork guys and their kin; corruption by its nature exists in small discrete groups, in an effort to avoid detection).

So? Mr. Stevens is falling out of favor. You don't have to be John Stewart to read the writing on the wall; he's extremely unpopular with the new generation and much of the middle generation. Have him do the deed, and if its exposed, have him take the fall.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, because I realize that useless pork is like a plague unto our nation.

Anything that provides an American with a job is not useless.

Because those reasons are spurious and insufficient.

Insufficent to whom? Spurious to whom? Certainly not to your fellow citizen who got the job. What's the purpose in having money and a federal government at all?

Oh please. I'm fully aware that we're looking at some serious economic nastiness coming down the pipe (all the more reason to not spend $220M on useless bullshit), but to equate it with the Great Depression just makes you look silly.

It'll be worse. The downturn of 2007 is just the begining: When service industries realize that robots can now replace workers, where will those workers who lose their jobs in house building go?. And if you think it's just science fiction- go take a look at a RECENT McDonald's sometime, and ask yourself where the Dingfries guy is doing now that there's a robot to take his place, or just who is taking your order in the Drive through lane. How long will it be before even that is taken over by a voice recognition system? Most people already order meals by number. This country is heading into a perfect storm that will destroy private industry- and it started 5 years ago.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[NeutronCowboy]

As someone once said... if you rob Peter to give to Paul, you'll always get support from Paul. Same with taxes and pork. There are specific constituents who benefit overwhelmingly from pork (generally generous campaign donoers) and who will overwhelmingly support future pork. The robbed, however, benefit only little, and, because the robbing is fairly evenly spread out, complain little as well. End result: generous campaign donors win.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

> Anything that provides an American with a job is not useless.

It is when another American is forced to pay for it. I'm sorry the Alaskan ironworkers don't have any jobs. Maybe they should try either moving somewhere they can find work or learn a new more in-demand trade. That's what I did when midrange offset printing went the way of the dinosaur.

> Insufficent to whom? Spurious to whom?

To me, the guy who gets stuck with the bill. Where do you think federal money comes from?

> It'll be worse.

I just stopped paying attention to you.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Where do you think federal money comes from?

It's just paper, printed up by the FED, who is given the right by Congress to sell it at face value even though it only cost $.04 to print. It's all a lie and a myth in the wide view- but one that is supposed to CREATE JOBS, not end up in savings accounts and 401ks.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[mashade]

Ok, so who do you think works in the factories building all of this dooms-day equipment that will ruin our livlihoods?

The jobs are displaced, not eliminated in the grand scheme of things. Employment rates and economies fluctuate, and the only thing that never changes is change. Stop waving your arms around like a lunatic and look back on history. The Great Depression wasn't caused by technology, it was caused by shitty banking practicies and an amalgamation of bad economic factors.

I realize that you're passionate, but this argument is a little bit of a red herring.

Technology can reduce the number of jobs within a certain sector, but that labor is merely displaced. It drives up the value of skilled laborers. Menial labor will always be in demand. It's just that it's easier to notice 'OMG my fries are served by a robot!!11' than to really step back and take a look at where Mr. Fryman went. I can assure you that there are other jobs he is capable of.

-- Shade

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Myself]

All elected officials are supposed to act on behalf of their constituents. The Judicial branch is freed from that nuisance and can focus on doing what the Constitution mandates, not what the people consider fashionable.

Keep in mind that without the Judicial branch, we'd still have segregated schools. Things like "legislating from the bench" are exactly what allow the Constitutionally "right" thing to overrule the popular thing.

Smack the next politician who claims it's his or her job to defend the people. Bullshit. It's his or her job to defend the Constitution, that's the oath they took.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[mashade]

Right, and part of the problem that leads to inflation is that fact -- In reality, it's only worth the paper its printed on. Fiat money.

We made it harder to earn (and save, for that matter) a buck when we traded instant cash for stability in 1913 and left the gold standard.

The printed money backed by faith is supposed to create jobs, but all it does is make it harder to accumulate wealth by changing the value on sliding scale, worth less and less every year.

-- Shade

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[McNally]

The money ought to come from Alaska's state budget. I hope that's obvious. But it's a lot harder to find $223 million in a state's budget than in the fed's. Pretty much the only way Alaska could come up with that money is to increase taxes. There's no way that Alaskan taxpayers would approve a tax increase for such a stupid cause.

You're perfectly right that Alaskans would never consider paying for this "vital" project themselves. Heck, I live in the community where the famous "bridge to nowhere" is supposedly going to be built and I'm sure you couldn't get voters here to tax themselves to pay for 5% of the bridge construction costs. What does that mean when you don't want to pay for something even when 95% of the cost will be paid for by someone else?

Oh, by the way, know what the top story on the front page of the Ketchikan Daily News was today? Apparently the $230,000,000 estimate for building the bridge was off by a bit and they're now saying it will take $328,000,000 to build the bridge they plan on building. Meanwhile about half of the money allocated for the bridge last year is now gone, used to pay for other transportation projects in Alaska after the earmarks were removed from the funding about a month after the first package passed. I wouldn't be surprised if, by the time it's done, we wind up calling it the Billion Dollar Bridge.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

yes, let's all return to the Gold Standard, that's a great idea and is certainly not one which has been tried unsucessfully many times.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[treeves]

If the whole country did that (especially on the national level, but also on the local level), I believe we'd have a lot fewer issues with corrupt politicians.

Unfortunately, that's one of the biggest "ifs" I've ever heard.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[deanj]

Hmmm....maybe I spoke too soon.

At least one democrat put a hold on it too, if this is to be believed.

http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2006/08/as-p redicted-its-ted-stevens-and-he.html

These guys need to go.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[cranktheguy]

i'm in. (been using that strategy since i started voting)

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[hotdiggitydawg]

"political parties are like old socks: if you don't change them often enough, they get so they smell". Having just two isn't that much better.

Well that goes without saying - if you only have two then all you can really do is swap feet...

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[AlHunt]

> My new policy on voting is to always vote out an incumbent, unless I've been especially happy
> with his performance. If the whole country did that (especially on the national level, but also > on the local level), I believe we'd have a lot fewer issues with corrupt politicians.

Be strong - un-elect *all* incumbents for at least 10 years. No matter how happy you are with them. I'm sure Mr. Stevens constituents are most happy with him. (actually, some of them aren't happy - seems the bridge may despoil some whale habitat)

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[gettingbraver]

My new policy on voting is to always vote out an incumbent, unless I've been especially happy with his performance.

That is how I feel, but, I'm taking it a step further. If there is a do-nothing incumbent running against a candidate who is a complete hypocrite (demonstrated by past offices held or changed party affiliation in an attempt to get elected, as is the case in my district), I'm writing in my own name and getting a few friends to do the same. And keeping track of the numbers, of course.
Be interesting to see how the results are counted.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they have no fear of not being re-elected while they're serving their lame duck term.
Instead they may just swing even more pork deals to ensure that they get a nice position in some company board after said term ends.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Cid Highwind]

McMansions for people from the lower 48 once the island was joined to the airport

This is southeast Alaska we're talking about here; that water they're building a bridge over *is* an airport!

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent -1 commie!

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[mashade]

I didn't say it's practical to return to the gold standard. I'm saying it's something we shouldn't have moved off of.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[mikec]

No, power corrupts, too. First, a lot of people develop a taste for power. Second, a lot of people convince themselves to make unhealthy compromises to get reelected, because their opponent would be even worse.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

I'm no economist, but they moved off it for a reason. From what I understand, it stifled inflation at the cost of dramatic boom/bust swings. A little constant inflation is better than cyclic depressions.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[mOdQuArK!]

Another idea you might want to consider is a hard limit on spending. A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, for instance, restricting the feds from spending more than they're getting in revenue.

Once the Congresscritters figure out that everyone else's pork will take _their_ pork away, you'd better believe they'll be fighting tooth & nail to slap down anyone who looks like they're getting more than their "fair" share.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Scudsucker]

It seems to me that Kerry's position was so vague that it would be hard to vote for him in good confidence.

That was the GOP spin, anyway. Of course, GOP spin and reality seldom have anything to do with eachother. Even his "I actually voted for the war before I voted against it" is crystal clear when the media wasn't too lazy to explain the context. Kerry lost because of massive voter disenfranchisement, but also because he had incompetent campaign managers.

And on top of that, Kerry was scary looking, not monkey-ish.

Funny you should say that.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Scudsucker]

Smack the next politician who claims it's his or her job to defend the people. Bullshit. It's his or her job to defend the Constitution, that's the oath they took.

Nonsense. It is in the Constitution: "promote the general welfare" right in the Preamble.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[nickos]

In the UK, the Tory party used to not only reduce taxes, but also reduce interest rates before an election to reduce the mortgage repayments of middle class voters. Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly to anyone with half a clue) the British economic cycle did not match the election cycle, and over time the results were disastrous.

Despite the fact that I despise Blair now, when he and his party came into power in 1997 they did a smart thing by passing control of interest rates to the Bank of England.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Erixxxxx]

You can't tell me that a $223 million project like Ted Steven's "Bridge to Nowhere" didn't mean a hell of a lot of local jobs for an area of only 8050 people

Well, that money didnt just appear by magic. It was taken from people somewhere else in the country. So $223 million dollars worth (actually more - $223 mill was left after the govt took its cut) of jobs elsewhere were eliminated so that the Alaskan servant could bribe his employers.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Erixxxxx]

All elected officials should act in the best interests of their constituents- and that IS the best interests of the country as a whole.

Yes well, unfortunately we have many (if not most) politicians who seem to think they represent their political party in Congress, rather than their constituents.

The problem comes in when the pork doesn't go to the consituents- but instead to a K-Street contractor

Well no, the problem comes when some idiot thinks they actually have the ability to determine that people in District A are more deserving of the people in District B's money than the people in District B themselves. The govt Has. No. Money. Pork isnt coming from the govt, its coming from other people in other parts of the country. Its idiots trying to 'run' an ecosystem.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[hachete]

I believe the alternate name for this theory is "the pork scratchings theory". This probably only works in England.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

Cripes. By way of comparison, the 13km Confederation Bridge to Prince Edward Island in Canada really did cost $1 Billion CAD (only ~$750M USD then). It was paid for by the government taking the subsidy they were paying to keep the ferry running ($44M/yr CAD), and committing to pay it to the builders for the next 33 years (2032). The rest of the cost was privately funded and paid for by tolls. The ferries served something like 700000 trips per year (now about 1 million thanks to the bridge), PEI has about 138000 people, and it was a constitutional requirement to maintain the ferry service or equivalent (it was a term when PEI joined confederation in the 1870s).

It's, what, maybe 500 metres across the bay, and a 7 minute ride, to get to the airport in Ketchikan? The main bridge is almost the size of a Golden Gate Bridge for a community of about 13000 people (in the whole area). And even if it replaces the ferry, bridges and roads aren't without maintenance costs. It's freaking *insane*.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Erixxxxx]

Well, you seem to take it as a given that people should invest for the purpose of benfiting others rather than themselves...are you saying pork spending should be based on your personal religous beliefs?

Are the voters not mere mortals as well? If an individual would only invest their money on something that benefits themselves (i.e they are rational), what makes you think that individuals behavior is going to be any different when standing in a voting booth?

Im sorry, your post just really doesnt make too much sense.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Erixxxxx]

it was to provide a link between several acres of developable land and the airport.

Right. Makes perfect sense from the developers point of view - $50 grand or so to buy a politician to steal the money from others rather than pay for building the bridge themselves.

Of course, you havent explained why the developers couldnt pay for the bridge themselves, then recoup the money in the cost of the housing/development projects they are going to build and profit from. Then, when Joe from California retires, he buys the place and in the cost absorbs the cost of the bridge he is then - not previously, but then - benefiting from.

This just helps explain why the Alaskan servant is against the database...it would be easier for us to find out which of those developers are his friends/family members, and/or how much stock he owns in the development companies, and/or how much of the land to be developed is owned by him/his friends/family members.

Here's an interesting idea for a law: as it is now, when the Pres takes office, he has to divest himself of all holdings in companies, stocks etc. Lets require the same from members of congress. And to sweeten it, lets tack on a part that says any congresman sitting on any comittee who has recieved donations from any party involved in any of the comittees' business be required to abstain from any vote or action of that committee regarding that particular piece of business.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Erixxxxx]

Youre kidding...someone asks you where the govt gets the money and your answer is, in effect, that they print it? Do your mommy and daddy know your on the computer?

Your understanding of economics is along the lines of religous conservatives understanding of evolution.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Erixxxxx]

Riiiight, the gold standard.

Yes, lets back our currency not with human labor and creativity (the possibility of valuation for which is infinite), but a finite supply of a natural resource. That way, before any economic expansion can take place, we first must acquire a larger supply of that resource. Oh yes, brilliant. Yes, lets return to the ultimate causation of the rape of South America by the Spanish and the rape of North America by the US (among many many other examples). What an amazing idea. Yes, lets return to when the purpose of labor wasnt to create more wealth, but aquire it. Yes, lets go back to a system that requires at all times a certain amount of protectionism (and thus lack of opportunity) so that a certain amount of the finite natural resource backing the currency is always kept in and never paid out. Yes, lets return to the system wherein, ultimately at some point due to the necessity of protectionism, war and conquest are the only way an economy can expand. Oh yes, superb.

Not backing a currency by a finite natural resource, or indeed by any material thing at all, was the second greatest conceptual achievement of mankind after the development of agriculture, IMO. Since there is no objective value to anything, its rediculous to try to base ones currency on a (falsely) objective standard. We here in the US only some 30 odd years ago finally cut the umbilical cord completely, and if it hadnt been done we wouldnt be having this conversation because the technology never would have gotten as widespread as rapidly, if it had been invented at all.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Erixxxxx]

If private industry were not viable, then what stocks could people own that would be paying out dividends? Where would the dividends come from? What would the trust fund be making money from?

Or are you talking at a state level, wherein anachronistic labor/business laws cause some states to have third-world economies and rely on govt handouts while others have more sane labor/business laws and thus are forced to indirectly subsidise the third-world states? So the rich in third-world states own stocks in companies that are headquarted in non-third-world states? Perhaps the people in the third-world states should maybe get their govt's to, you know, join the 21st century, or at least the 20th?

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[teflaime]

My theorem: The longer any party or group remains in power the closer they come to corrupt.

Change that to "the more corrupt they become," and I'll agree with you. I believe that you have to be a little corrupt to engage in politics in our system in the first place, unless you are actively trying to sever the major party hold on ballot access. We can expect a lot of red faces when same bi-partisan muck-rakers get their hands on the online database and equally glib Senators and Representatives have to answer for decades of funny business which has passed beneath the radar in a long game of "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine."

That's making the assumption that the bill will pass. Just because it was introduced in a bi-partisan fashion doesn't mean that it will pass. Certainly, Bill Frist and the Democrat from Nevada would have a vested interest, as party leadership, in not seeing it pass, as it would reduce the leadership's hold on the rank and file. After all, if people can monitor the nonsensical spending that comes out of D.C., they will begin to more vigorously object when they see spending they don't like. In the end, it might create greater turn over in the leadership, as leaders lose their seats for spending that constituents object to and will ultimately pin on the leadership. And I have no faith in the leaders of either party, so I fully expect them to pull out all the stops to get this bill defeated.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[indifferent children]

it was to provide a link between several acres of developable land and the airport

Because Alaska doesn't have a billion acres of developable land that dont require $223M bridges to reach.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[indifferent children]

But they still want everybody else's money for their pork.

Imported pork has that extra... je ne sais quois. It's kind of like being up to your ass in cows, but shelling out the dough for Kobe beef.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

I've suggested this to a few (politically disillusioned) people I know, but I haven't heard of anyone else suggesting it. However, if politicians were virtually certain that they would lose office, it could increase corruption rather than reduce it, because they'd just cash in as much as possible during their one term.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[orderb13]

So what, you're just suppossed to work until you die? Why can't I put money away so that I can retire and stop working when I get older, and thus open my job up to someone else?

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[blueskies]

Well, we're either all in this together- and should hang together as Americans- or we're all separate states- in which case we're better off disbanding the federal government altogether.

Wow, we only have 2 choices. What happened to all of our other choices? In most cases as soon as someone provides only two solutions to a problem (ie: false dichotomy), i know to disregard everything else they have said too. They obviously haven't thought about the problem very much.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[DaFallus]

I think all publicly elected positions should have term limits, no one can hold any position for more than 8 years. I don't think being a representative or holding public office should be someone's main occupation. I almost think we'd be better off if instead of electing our officials we simply chose them in a manner similar to how people are selected for jury duty. Either way it is a crap shoot, but if it is completely random every time I think you have better chances of breaking the bipartisan stranglehold on the country.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

that the Alaskans head south to take your job away

Oh no! What would that be, five, maybe even SIX more people in my metro area competing for jobs? We'd be eaten alive!

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[SnapShot]

That may be true, but Alaska (home of those rugged pioneers and individualists) is by far the worst of the Red welfare states. The Economist happened to have a article on it just his month: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id =7830279

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[merlin_jim]

There's no way that Alaskan taxpayers would approve a tax increase for such a stupid cause

Unless of course Alaska doesn't have a state tax. Which it doesn't. Taxation on the oil pipeline provides so much revenue that it pays its residents! My brother claimed residency when he was stationed there (Operation Wolfpac for the curious) and got a nice check over and above the state taxes he paid every year!

I don't know where this money should come from or what the budgets look like - just wanted to point out that Alaska is in a unique (and enviable) position when it comes to state taxes...

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[7-Vodka]

"The 2005 dividend is $845.76."
Ahahaha. You don't even have to be in alaska all year because they give you 180 days that you can leave and still get paid. You get paid that much to live in alaska for 6 months out of the year!

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[HeyMe]

Therefore...

Proposed Constutitonal Amendment for Congressional Term Limits:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of Represenatitive more than four (4) times nor shall any person be elected to the office of Senator more than twice nor shall any person serve terms totaling more than fourteen (14) years in both offices.

Section 2. After ratification, this article will take effect during the next regular election cycle for each Senator and Represenatitive as set fourth in Article 3 of the United States Constitution.


Elective public service is not a "career".

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[cmburns69]

How would your employer survive if every 2 years they fired an entire department and started over from scratch? They would get little to nothing done, and the same concept applies to government.

This is a fair criticism. I would probably not use the "fire-them-all" strategy if we had a complete change of the guard.

Unfortunately, I believe our politicians are a reflection of our society. It's not just the politicians who are beholden to their own self interests and the almighty special interest dollar. It's the majority of our society. The thinking over the past decades has gradually changed from "do what is best for others" mentality to "do what is best for yourself". Yes, there are exceptions, but until society pulls it's collective head out, we'll be stuck on our own well-built (with tax-payer money) highway to hell. /rant

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, you seem to take it as a given that people should invest for the purpose of benfiting others rather than themselves...are you saying pork spending should be based on your personal religous beliefs?

Yes. I see no other way that leads to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness.

Are the voters not mere mortals as well? If an individual would only invest their money on something that benefits themselves (i.e they are rational), what makes you think that individuals behavior is going to be any different when standing in a voting booth?

The 2000 and 2004 elections proved that- when Red States voted invariably against politicians (not just President) who supported agendas against their economic interest. The reason- lobbyist money spent finding a hole that voters cared more about than economics.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Youre kidding...someone asks you where the govt gets the money and your answer is, in effect, that they print it?

That's what a fiat currency is. You claim that the government has no money- I disagree, and my proof is in the signature on the dollar bill in your pocket. It isn't your name- it therefore isn't yours. It was lent to you for a specific purpose- creating a stable economy- and misusing it by saving it instead of spending it is a dereliction of duty on your part.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[JesseMcDonald]

I'm no economist, but they moved off it for a reason. From what I understand, it stifled inflation at the cost of dramatic boom/bust swings. A little constant inflation is better than cyclic depressions.

Sure, that was the theory at the time. However, the repudiation of the Treasury's liabilities (failure to redeem the existing paper receipts in gold as promised), the policy of institutionalized inflation, and theories of "underconsumption" and "hoarding" resulted directly in the Great Depression and have contributed to evey other "business cycle" since. Keynesian economics, the supposed justification for eliminating commodity money, are no longer considered sound even among those "economists" who advocate interventionalism; the only economic theory in existance that has adequitely explained each and every one of the cyclic booms and depressions (which are very recent phenomena to begin with, the major ones dating from the creation of the Federal Reserve) is the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (explained in the book referenced below), which clearly concludes that the "dramatic boom/bust swings" were due to inflation itself; further inflation can only delay the inevitable correction (the depression), making it even more severe. Unfortunately, unwilling to admit that the problem is intervention itself and not just Keynesian policies, and yet unable to come up with any consistent theory to their liking, they have allowed the existing policies to continue rather than admit that the "laisse-faire" proponents were right all along.

An economic/historical analysis of the Great Depression is available for further reference: America's Great Depression, by Murray N. Rothbard.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

You'll forgive me if I simply choose to observer a far longer period of prosperity off the gold standard than on it and deduce my conclusions from there. No offense, but economic theories are a dime a dozen and each of them has a diametric opposite which refutes it. It's more art than science, as far as I can tell.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If private industry were not viable, then what stocks could people own that would be paying out dividends?

Private industry is not viable for American-born workers; we're too expensive and have priced ourselves out of the market. Or to put it another way- C-level executives and stockholders have become so greedy, there's no money left to pay an American Payroll.

Where would the dividends come from?

From the pockets of the working class, whose blood, sweat, and time was used to create the profit. Since Americans, by and large, require more of that profit than elsewhere, private industry is turning elsewhere for workers.

What would the trust fund be making money from?

From the slavery of workers in third world nations, or where they're forced to have laborers here in customer service, from shorting the wages of illegal immigrants.

Or are you talking at a state level, wherein anachronistic labor/business laws cause some states to have third-world economies and rely on govt handouts while others have more sane labor/business laws and thus are forced to indirectly subsidise the third-world states?

That's funny- it's the ones that don't have sane labor/business laws that are currently getting the business- because slavery is always cheaper than paying a living wage.

So the rich in third-world states own stocks in companies that are headquarted in non-third-world states? Perhaps the people in the third-world states should maybe get their govt's to, you know, join the 21st century, or at least the 20th?

It's the other way around- the rich in the first world own businesses that are headquartered here, but do all their business in countries that we are at war with (whether that be the hot, violent kind of war, or the cold, economic kind of war that President Reagan was so good at). Leaving NOTHING for lower-skilled Americans to do. And then when those lower skilled Americans get skills, and demand a wage that includes a dividend on what it cost to get those skills, they just bring in H-1bs, L-1s, and TN visa holders to replace the Americans anyway.

For any child born in America- I say study politics and bureaucracy, because it's the only way you're ever going to be able to hold down a job in the 21st century where human beings are just another commodity- to be used & abused.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[JesseMcDonald]

You'll forgive me if I simply choose to observer a far longer period of prosperity off the gold standard than on it and deduce my conclusions from there. No offense, but economic theories are a dime a dozen and each of them has a diametric opposite which refutes it. It's more art than science, as far as I can tell.

Which "far longer period" are you referring to? The gold standard (gold as commodity currency) has existed in most of the world for millenia (particularly including some of the most prosperous times in human history, such as the Industrial Revolution), and was only supplanted by widespread (i.e. international) fiat currency in the last century or so -- a time period known for its scientific and technological advancements, but also for its fiscal uncertainty even in the absence of external disruptive influences: hardly the mark of a sound currency.

If you know of an "diametric opposite" to the ABCT capable of refuting it, feel free to point it out rather than just vaguely alluding to its inevitable existance. There's just as much "science" in the ABCT as there is in the fields of logic and mathematics, as they are based on the same underlying principles. If you have a problem with one of the axioms or propositions please say so more clearly, and indicate which one you disagree with.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Copid]

Right, and part of the problem that leads to inflation is that fact -- In reality, it's only worth the paper its printed on. Fiat money.

So, you're saying that you prefer the deflation that is a necessary consequence of tying the currency of a steadily growing economy to a finite natural resource over the mild inflation that is the result of a properly managed central bank?

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Copid]

Anything that provides an American with a job is not useless.

Even if that job isn't doing something benficial to society, or when that benefit is far smaller than the cost incurred to purchase it? If I slashed all of the tires on my street, you can bet that the tire salesmen would be happy, but was that really a social good. Likewise, if I take money away from a company that employs engineers in order to pay an unemployed person to dance in the woods where nobody can see him, was that a net benefit? I think that there's a lot to be said for government programs to minimize unemployment, but they always come at a cost.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So, you're saying that you prefer the deflation that is a necessary consequence of tying the currency of a steadily growing economy to a finite natural resource over the mild inflation that is the result of a properly managed central bank?

I would- if not given a third choice. That third choice would be to admit that the whole thing is mythical, and thus should be managed by DECENTRALIZED, COMMUINITY BASED banks, where the bank managers have to directly suffer from their decisions.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So what, you're just suppossed to work until you die?

Why not? If you enjoy what you do, retirement can be far more detrimental to your health than continuing to work. Plus, there's an added bonus for the employer of actually having a workforce with (gasp) experience.

Why can't I put money away so that I can retire and stop working when I get older, and thus open my job up to someone else?

Because at that point, your spending also decreases, cutting 2 jobs for the one you vacate.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And I'm entirely the opposite- basing your currency on something entirely imaginary and unmeasurable makes it utterly worthless. You can't create wealth out of thin air- and money does not represent wealth.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Ok, so who do you think works in the factories building all of this dooms-day equipment that will ruin our livlihoods?

Either illegal aliens or H-1b/L-1/TN visa holders (depending on the country they're from and how they were hired, and what job they are doing). That is if any human beings need to work there at all- I already see checkout counters at my local grocery store that don't need any employees to do the work.

The jobs are displaced, not eliminated in the grand scheme of things.

When you only need one illegal alien to do the work of 8 previous checkout clerks, the jobs have been eliminated. They won't be coming back.

Employment rates and economies fluctuate, and the only thing that never changes is change.

I used to think that way- until I started asking WHY. The answer was not very pretty- and points to a time when we're all just slaves to about 2000 families who are already well on their way to owning the entire planet.

The Great Depression wasn't caused by technology, it was caused by shitty banking practicies and an amalgamation of bad economic factors.

So? Different depressions are caused by different things. The next BIG one will be caused by selling the government to the highest bidder.

Technology can reduce the number of jobs within a certain sector, but that labor is merely displaced. It drives up the value of skilled laborers.

Skilled labor can be imported, thus driving the value back down. And eventually, all skilled labor can be replaced with expert systems and machines.

Menial labor will always be in demand.

Remember my example of the checkout clerk? Menial labor is already being replaced. I no longer need illegal immigrants to mow my lawn, my Robomow has replaced Juan, and I don't need them inside my house either, my Roomba does the same job inside. What makes you think Menial Labor will always be in demand? Always is a long time, and in the next 40 years, I can already forsee most menial labor being replaced.

I realize that you're passionate, but this argument is a little bit of a red herring.

Now that's a good joke, given my name, and an even better one given what I stand for- I'm not anti-tech. I'm in fact looking forward to the day when we can collectively, as a race, tell the entire capitalist system that we don't need it anymore.

Technology can reduce the number of jobs within a certain sector, but that labor is merely displaced. It drives up the value of skilled laborers. Menial labor will always be in demand. It's just that it's easier to notice 'OMG my fries are served by a robot!!11' than to really step back and take a look at where Mr. Fryman went. I can assure you that there are other jobs he is capable of.

The other jobs have already been taken by the illegal aliens. And he's too much of an idiot to become skilled. I'll tell you what happens to him- he spends a couple of years looking for a job, and then the Department of Labor reclassifies him as disabled and gives him $70 a month to live on. It's happened to MILLIONS of people in the last 5 years- it's the only way they were able to keep the unemployment rate so low while importing more illegal aliens each month than they had jobs for.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Copid]

Well, I can see the desire for more locally responsive money supplies. I was fairly well convinced that the Euro wouldn't work as the practical monetary policy for one country would almost certainly be wrong for another country in the worst case. I don't see any evidence that our central bank failing on that account in the US, though.

As for deflation, I can't think of any sensible argument to prefer it over inflation of a comparable scale, given that it's nasty to counteract and has a tendency to cause economies to spiral down to a halt. As far as history has shown, price stability is not really a reasonable option, and mild inflation is generally associated with a healthier economy, as well as being better understood and easier to control. Sure, a money supply that grew perfeclty with the needs of the economy would be great, but you can't have that with your money supply tied to an arbitrary resource. You can't even have it with a managed money supply, but you can come a whole lot closer.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I personally believe ABCT is true- but I don't see laisez faire as the solution for it (nor do I see central bank interventionism as a solution for it). What I see as a solution is restricted, small scale community economies- run on the concepts of a Just Wage and Fair Price. In other words, Protectionism with a strong sense of Communitas.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, I can see the desire for more locally responsive money supplies. I was fairly well convinced that the Euro wouldn't work as the practical monetary policy for one country would almost certainly be wrong for another country in the worst case. I don't see any evidence that our central bank failing on that account in the US, though.

I see a good deal of evidence for the US central bank failing on that score. Just look at the county-level statistics for the 2004 election to see the failures.

As for deflation, I can't think of any sensible argument to prefer it over inflation of a comparable scale, given that it's nasty to counteract and has a tendency to cause economies to spiral down to a halt.

After a period of irrational materialism, the economy grinding to a halt is what is needed. Think of it as the same as a family- microeconomics always makes more sense. If a family has gotten themselves into debt, which is better? Piling up more debt or paying it off?

As far as history has shown, price stability is not really a reasonable option, and mild inflation is generally associated with a healthier economy, as well as being better understood and easier to control.

Ah, but what is the purpose of the control? If the purpose of the control is to widen the gap between the rich and the poor, I'd agree with you- it's not in the best interest of the rich to allow the poor to stop consuming and pay off their debt from irrational consumption. But if the purpose is the end of capitalism because there's no longer any need for even 60% of your population to work to maintain the status quo- then a period of adjustment will be needed.

Sure, a money supply that grew perfeclty with the needs of the economy would be great, but you can't have that with your money supply tied to an arbitrary resource. You can't even have it with a managed money supply, but you can come a whole lot closer.

Thus returning to my point of DECENTRALIZED banks run by LOCAL governments, and taxes being replaced merely with the profit that comes from being able to print one's own money. Local governments will do local pork projects- and being able to print their own money, will be able to afford to do so- which will create local jobs. Those local jobs produce local consumers- which will want services the government doesn't provide, providing an opportunity for local businessmen, who create even more jobs. By keeping the communities as small and local as possbile, you encourage economic growth LOCALLY. And by limiting the money supply to government spending, you avoid the fake money of banks extending credit, which by ABCT theory is what causes boom/bust cycles.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Even if that job isn't doing something benficial to society, or when that benefit is far smaller than the cost incurred to purchase it?

Idealy, the job should be either in creation of, or maintenance of, infrastructure. Every job in that category is HIGHLY valuable to local jobs and the local economy. That's how we dug our way (or dammed our way) out of the Depression in the west.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

Like I said, I'm no economist, but I've simply never been convinced that economics is anything close to a science. So I'm sure your paper might be persuasive, but I simply view economic theories as religion. I mean, hell, look at something as fundamental as the gold standard. It seems to me that if there was wide agreement among economists that it was a great idea, you'd have a better political spokesman than Lyndon LaRouche, ya know? Or was he the silver guy? I can never remember.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Copid]

I see a good deal of evidence for the US central bank failing on that score. Just look at the county-level statistics for the 2004 election to see the failures.

Details, please? I didn't see prices spiraling out of control in either direction. Unemployment wasn't at record lows and GDP growth weren't at record, highs, but I'm definitely not seeing the economic argument for laying that at the feet of the central banking system.

After a period of irrational materialism, the economy grinding to a halt is what is needed. Think of it as the same as a family- microeconomics always makes more sense. If a family has gotten themselves into debt, which is better? Piling up more debt or paying it off?

I'm completely missing your leap from deflation and debt. I think I'm just not following your analogy.

Ah, but what is the purpose of the control? If the purpose of the control is to widen the gap between the rich and the poor, I'd agree with you- it's not in the best interest of the rich to allow the poor to stop consuming and pay off their debt from irrational consumption. But if the purpose is the end of capitalism because there's no longer any need for even 60% of your population to work to maintain the status quo- then a period of adjustment will be needed.

The purpose of the control is mainly to ensure price stability and prevent massive unemployment. If you want to read a deeper social agenda into it, I suppose you can, but it seems like you're advocating bringing the economy to a screeching halt and replacing it with a simpler one that grows more slowly and discourages capital investment. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Thus returning to my point of DECENTRALIZED banks run by LOCAL governments, and taxes being replaced merely with the profit that comes from being able to print one's own money. Local governments will do local pork projects- and being able to print their own money, will be able to afford to do so- which will create local jobs. Those local jobs produce local consumers- which will want services the government doesn't provide, providing an opportunity for local businessmen, who create even more jobs. By keeping the communities as small and local as possbile, you encourage economic growth LOCALLY. And by limiting the money supply to government spending, you avoid the fake money of banks extending credit, which by ABCT theory is what causes boom/bust cycles.

So, how exactly is fiat money "fake" when it's used to buy bonds to control the money supply and "real" when it's used by the government to purchase goods and services? More importantly, given that this system guarantees steady money supply growth regardless of increases in productivity or money demand, how do you keep inflation from spiraling out of control, and how do you handle foreign trade with economies that aren't required to accept your devalued currency?

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Copid]

And that's great for the local economy (although I strongly doubt that the lack of this bridge is what's holding back the local economy). It's also a good way of getting things up and running again when you're stuck in deflation like the Great Depression. The question is, could that $300M be better spent on other infrastructure or other goods and services that contribute to the economy? Certainly, on a national level, it's hard to argue that this isn't the case.

Of course a free bridge is great for the local economy. Just dumping $300M in cash on the local economy would be great for the local economy. The question is whether it's justified, given that the local government has the money to pay for part of the project and isn't willing to do so. Opportunity cost is especially important to consider given that Stevens threw a hissy fit over the fact that Senator Coburn wanted to redirect that money to rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricane Katrina.

I'm definitely not saying that public works projects are always a waste. I'm saying that they always have an opportunity cost, and sometimes that cost is tremendous. Ignoring the cost in favor of bringing home the pork for the locals is bad governance.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Details, please? I didn't see prices spiraling out of control in either direction. Unemployment wasn't at record lows and GDP growth weren't at record, highs, but I'm definitely not seeing the economic argument for laying that at the feet of the central banking system.

Overall, not- but in individual counties and sectors, records were being set- and where unemployment was highest- blue won...for good reason I think. But the economy is kind of like Iraq- you want to bind it into one system, you bought it, even if a one size fits all answer doesn't fit.

I'm completely missing your leap from deflation and debt. I think I'm just not following your analogy.

Inflation and deflation are strongly linked to credit. When credit is free and easy- low interest rates- inflation happens. When credit is not easy- high interest rates, foreclosures, and bankruptcies- deflation happens. The reason for this is the same way a family gets out of debt after overspending.

The purpose of the control is mainly to ensure price stability and prevent massive unemployment. If you want to read a deeper social agenda into it, I suppose you can, but it seems like you're advocating bringing the economy to a screeching halt and replacing it with a simpler one that grows more slowly and discourages capital investment. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Price stability and employement are at odds in the current system- you can either have high inflation, or high unemployment. Deflation would cause unemployment- but be followed by higher inflation, which would encourage employment.

So, how exactly is fiat money "fake" when it's used to buy bonds to control the money supply and "real" when it's used by the government to purchase goods and services?

It isn't. Money is ALWAYS fake, ALWAYS a myth- even when it's commodity rather than fiat. It has no value above that which people give it, no matter what. The problem isn't the myth- the problem is the one-size-fits-all managmment of the myth.

More importantly, given that this system guarantees steady money supply growth regardless of increases in productivity or money demand, how do you keep inflation from spiraling out of control, and how do you handle foreign trade with economies that aren't required to accept your devalued currency?

Well, I should preface this with the fact that I don't buy into the theory of competitive advantage- as far as I'm concerned only ONE type of trade between local economies is valid, and that is direct trade of goods that the other economy physically cannot produce. I disagree with money trading, it's usually in detriment to both economies, or at least has been for the last 40 years or so, because it encourages an imbalance. Having said that, in a very small local economy you WANT inflation to spiral out of control- because that's what is going to create the jobs to support an ever increasing population. But that only works in conjunction with one of the primary tenents of distributism, which is that REALATIONSHIPS are more important than PROFIT. Which implies that goods should be produced as close to the end consumer as possible.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[deanj]

Ha! I was right. Byrd did put a hold on the bill:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared- blogs/washington/washington/entries/2006/08/31/byr d_admits_he.html

He admitted it today, and took it off after admitting it.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[deanj]

"Even the Dem's King of Pork, Senator Byrd of VA, stands up for individual constitutional rights all the time"

Not this time...

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared- blogs/washington/washington/entries/2006/08/31/byr d_admits_he.html

He was another senator that put the bill on hold. He lifted it today, after all the web uproar.

He gave the same basic reason Steven's did.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Eccles]

Bah. If it's such a wonderful investment, Alaska could just post a bond issue and pay it off with these abundant future revenues. Only problem is there won't be any, so the state won't do it. But if you can get it for effectively 1% of the real price (Alaska's share of fed taxes), why the hell not?

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[JesseMcDonald]

Like I said, I'm no economist, but I've simply never been convinced that economics is anything close to a science. So I'm sure your paper might be persuasive, but I simply view economic theories as religion.

If it's a religion, then why is the (U.S.) government interfering in it? Isn't the government prohibited by the 1st Amendment from interfering in matters of religion? Wouldn't the implementation of economic policies then be the establishment of an offical State religion, a violation of the separation of Church and State? If economics is a religion, the only choice the government can make is laisse-faire, to have nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of any economic policy.

On the other hand, religion or not, if they're going to implement some sort of economic policy it might be a good idea to become familiar with the subject before showing up at the polls. Applications of such policies presently account for more than half of all government expenditures (and thus more than half of all taxes); voting without a sound understanding of economics is thus highly irresponsible. To do otherwise hurts everyone, not just yourself.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

1. Bonds, being borrowing, are always inherantly more expensive than paying cash on the barrelhead up front.

2. While they wait for a bond measure to pass, the cost of steel and concrete and especially asphalt is going up. Tick, Tick, Tick....

3. Alaska pays a hell of a lot more than $3 million in fed taxes- in fact the 8050 people this bridge will directly benefit probably pay more than that (especially the 50, who are all multi-millionaires who have summer homes on the island).

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

don't be dense, by 'religion' I meant it's theories are not provable. It's not science. People simply believe in, for instance, the Laffer curve or the gold standard or whatever. There's persuasive arguments and you can look to history to validate your ideas, but that's about it.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[epee1221]

The ability to be re-elected is supposed to be a check on such behavior; it is supposed to incentivize good performance by offering an extension. Unfortunately, when the majority doesn't care enough about what's being done in office to know a person's track record, that incentive isn't worth much.

Not only that, but the focus moves from being a good public servant to running a good campaign (and getting the money needed to do so).

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[JesseMcDonald]

I was speaking sarcastically; I don't actually believe economics to be a religion, of course. The point was that the world cannot be cleanly divided into "science" and "religion" -- not everything not classified as science is necessarily religion, and vice-versa. Nonetheless, the point about not getting involved is just as true if economics is, as you claim, a matter of beliefs without possibility of proof as it would be if economics were truly a religion. How can any interference be justified (or claimed to bring about an improvement) if the outcome of such policies cannot be accurately predicted in advance?

I have a feeling you've never looked into praxeology -- the logical study of human action, and the basis for the Austrian school of economics -- since its theories are both provable and falsifiable, and not based on the beliefs of individuals any more than the validity of mathematics or logic, or the scientific method, are based on such beliefs. Its conclusions are not based purely on "persuasive arguments" but rather on logical deduction from first principles. If you wish to examine these claims, I recommend Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (particularly pages 46-59 on "empiricism-positivism"), and finally either Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard or Human Action by Ludwig von Mises (all titles listed in ascending order by my assessment of difficulty and detail).

In any event, you didn't address my second (more important) point: as long as democratic (republican) governments insist on meddling in economics, voters should take it upon themselves to learn something of economics and employ that understanding in choosing their representatives, for themselves and for the other individuals their choices will affect.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

> How can any interference be justified (or claimed to bring about an improvement) if the outcome of such policies cannot be accurately predicted in advance?

Well, obviously it's something that needs to be dealt with as a fact of life. All I'm saying is that it's a mire not unlike literary critisism that I choose not to descend into.

> as long as democratic (republican) governments insist on meddling in economics, voters should take it upon themselves to learn something of economics and employ that understanding in choosing their representatives, for themselves and for the other individuals their choices will affect.

I have some understanding of economics. For the parts I don't understand, I look to what little consensus exists among economists, and failing that (which is often) I turn to my elected and/or appointed officials who are theoretically more knowledgeable on the subject. That's the point of a representative democracy. I don't have time to both do -my- job and become an armchair expert on every subject.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[bunions]

Just a heads-up: you're arguing with a guy who thinks robots are going to destroy the economy and that money is fake because "dude, it's just paper."

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Eccles]

1. Bonds, being borrowing, are always inherantly more expensive than paying cash on the barrelhead up front.

More expensive than cash legislatively stolen from others? Sure. Fleecing others is always good for oneself.

2. While they wait for a bond measure to pass, the cost of steel and concrete and especially asphalt is going up. Tick, Tick, Tick...

And so does the economy, almost always by more than the cost of materials, making it effectively cheaper.

Alaska pays a hell of a lot more than $3 million in fed taxes

Pure crap of a statement. They pay fed taxes for defense, etc., not for this bridge.

Stop trying to rationalize all this pork BS. Or pay for my driveway resurfacing.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

More expensive than cash legislatively stolen from others?

Both ways are cash legislatively stolen from others- bonds do have to be repaid eventually, and bonds include interest.

Sure. Fleecing others is always good for oneself.

We're either all in this together, or we might as well have a war and become 50 separate nations.

And so does the economy, almost always by more than the cost of materials, making it effectively cheaper.

The economy hasn't been going up by more than the cost of materials in the last 5 years or so. What makes you think the economy always expands faster than the cost of materials? That's a ridiculous statement on it's face.

Pure crap of a statement. They pay fed taxes for defense, etc., not for this bridge.

The complaint of the grandparent was that this bridge cost MORE than Alaska pays in taxes TOTAL, not that they paid those taxes for other uses. How are you going to get shore-based Naval guns to that island without the bridge? Even for national defense, it's a pay me now or pay me later situation.

Stop trying to rationalize all this pork BS. Or pay for my driveway resurfacing.

Is your house sticking out a mile from the coastline, where it could reasonably require defense? Plus, didn't we already pay to have your "driveway" paid for in the form of a public road in front of you and your 50 closest neighbors?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It had to be put on hold...

[cmburns69]

Mr. Stevens put the bill on hold while waiting for the Internet sent by his staff member.

I believe he'll still be waiting when hell freezes over.

Re:It had to be put on hold...

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

I'd read this (on CNN I think) a while ago and the real reasons one of his staffers gave was 1) he wanted more details on how it would actually work and 2) he was worried about the cost-benefit of the program.

OK so #1 does make some sense because can you imagine how clogged up the tubes could get with all that pork. #2 however, come on! This is the same guy who threw a hissy fit when people complained about his $223 million "Bridge to nowhere" to an island with 50 people. Whats the cost-benefit on that!?!?!

Re:It had to be put on hold...

[Fordiman]

What more details could he want?

Congress passes a bill that would spend money. The bill, everyone who voted on it, and every research reference sited is indexed and put into a search engine. Since these bills are already electronically filed, this is just an extra step that could take, maybe, $1000 worth of programming.

The US Code, as it is, is already available online, and can be inserted into the database cheaply and quickly.

As for the cost/benefit analysis... The cost is paying a couple of programmers an exorbant government check to write the database and search engine. Call it a million bucks, plus $160,000 a year for maintenance (sounds like a lot for a couple of web programmers, but recall that this is a government contract).

The benefit, to the american citizen, is the ability to see where their tax money is going - and vote out those who spend it on shit. In one defense bill alone, there has recently been over $9 billion spent on pork (see the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act). I'd say the benefit would be the ability to expose that kind of rediculous spending, and to prevent it in the future.

I don't buy either argument. He made the mistake of trying to shadily deal in a politically aware and publicly vocal nonmarket environment, and now he's trying desperately not to lose face.

No Shit, Sherlock?

[Kadin2048]

How the heck did it take them that long? Were they working through the Senate in geographic order, from south to north?

When I first heard about this thing, my immediate thought was "it's gotta be that fuckhead from Alaska. Wait -- he couldn't possibly be that stupid, could he? ... Yeah, he could." How was he not the first person they looked into?

It's a little alarming that there might have been that many better suspects than him to investigate first. But I guess that's become the point of the Senate these days: a high-pressure hose of pork-barrel cash back to your home state. Keep the money rolling in and your head down, and you can stay there apparently forever.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[Dr. Eggman]

Exactly, It's like watching the original Star Wars trilogy then being surprised when Palpatine turns out to be the sith lord in Episode III.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[cowscows]

Yeah, it's easy to suspect somebody, but a little harder to find the proof. At first, nobody knew who was responsible for it, and so people started questioning their congress people to find out where they stood. Sen. Stevens did not answer until pretty much everyone else had denied being responsible. Then, when it was about to get pinned on him anyways, he admitted it.

I don't think too many people were surprised by who it ended up being, but it's still better to have it as fact than to have it as a probably right guess.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[MBCook]

I think it's terrible too. But reading the article something else struck me.

Doesn't it give someone entirely too much power to let a single Senator be able to block and entire bill indefinatly and anonymously? Isn't the whole point of a body like the Senate to make multiple people have to agree on something so one lone quack can't screw things up like this?

Alaskins... PLEASE tell me you are doing something about this guy.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[XorNand]

Damnit. And that was at the top of my Netflix queue.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[snowgirl]

Lol, oh yeah, and as for the second in your Netflix queue, Kong dies.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't it give someone entirely too much power to let a single Senator be able to block and entire bill indefinatly and anonymously? Isn't the whole point of a body like the Senate to make multiple people have to agree on something so one lone quack can't screw things up like this?

The reason for these holds is that Senate rules require unanimous consent to put something to a vote. It's basically a way of saying "Some of us haven't made up our minds yet." Without such a rule, you'd could easily have Senators forcing votes on issues that the potential opposition hasn't had time to consider. Expect to hear something like this from Sen. Stevens.

Clearly, it is being abused in this case, but I just wanted to make it clear that these rules exist for basically good reasons.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[Phred T. Magnificent]

When I first heard about this thing, my immediate thought was "it's gotta be that fuckhead from Alaska. Wait -- he couldn't possibly be that stupid, could he? ... Yeah, he could." How was he not the first person they looked into?

Perhaps because there are others just as bad. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), to name one. (Yes, I am from Utah, and yes, I AM planning to vote for Hatch's opponent, Pete Ashdown, in November.)

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Alaskins... PLEASE tell me you are doing something about this guy.

Saddly I doubt they will because they enjoy all the pork he has been able to send thier way (hope I'm wrong). What I think we need is some system in the Senate and House where if enough signitures are collected around the country there would be some sort of impeachment of a congressman. It would obviously have to be some crazy high number so it wasn't abused by bigger states picking on little states, but there should be some way to protect the country from twits like this. And then if you have a congressman impeached thier seat must remain empty until the next scheduled election as a punishment to the people in that state for voiting in such an ass-clown in the first place.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[MBCook]

I understand liking pork and all but there is a limit. It's a $300,000,000 bridge for like 20 people. If it was possible to get a bridge built from California to Hawaii for that much I don't think it could get passed.

Besides, isn't their no-state-income-tax/sales-tax and $1000 per year per citizen oil proffits enough (which would only go UP if ANOIR was opened)?

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[StikyPad]

Alaskins... PLEASE tell me you are doing something about this guy.

Dude, you're talking to a brick wall. There are no internet tubes running to Alaska yet, and even the oil tubes barely work.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[MBCook]

OK, that makes perfect sense.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[kcbrown]

Doesn't it give someone entirely too much power to let a single Senator be able to block and entire bill indefinatly and anonymously?

Since most laws place restrictions on a person's freedom, I'd much rather there be as many mechanisms in place as possible to stall the passage of legislation as long as possible, or to prevent it entirely.

To be honest, one of the biggest mistakes this country's founders made was to set up a full-time legislative body. Instead, they should have set it up so that it congregated only on demand.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[Anonymous Coward]

COME ON PEOPLE! Where were the tags?!?

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[Ksisanth]

It's a touch ironic that the secret hold issue was taken up back in March with the Wyden-Grassley amendment to prohibit secret holds (SA 2944), which passed with a Yea-Nay vote of 84-13. It was an amendment to S.2349, Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[lawpoop]

"It's basically a way of saying "Some of us haven't made up our minds yet." "

Why does it have to be secret?

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[FleaPlus]

> How was he not the first person they looked into?

I'm fairly certain he was. However, if I understand correctly, when called, Stevens and his staff kept on refusing to comment on whether or not he was the one who instated the hold.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[The New Stan Price]

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced the bill, and he's known about the hold for two weeks now. I'd hardly call that a secret hold.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[lawpoop]

As I asked the granparent, if it's just for saying "Some of us haven't made up our minds yet", then why does it have to be secret? What's the problem with publically saying "I/we need more time to review this matter"?

Others have said that the tradition of the senate is that putting something on hold is a promise to filibuster if it ever comes to the floor.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[Copid]

Of course, even with that rule available, the PATRIOT act sailed through without being read by some of the people who voted on it. Kind of amazing, huh?

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[ackthpt]

Look, this is great, go bloggers, hurray for our side. But I've gotta say, "Smoke-Filled Room 0" is a tad optimistic. I mean, if only, right?

Smoke-Filled Rooms have a habit of reacting in nasty ways which are "good for America."

Watcheth thyne back.

Checks and Balances

[tsunamiiii]

Hah,, Great PI work. Yet another check and balance for the Gov to deal with :)

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[sterno]

Besides, now that we know it's him, is he lifting the hold? Sure we can shame him but my impression is that Stevens is well beyond being vulnerable to that.

The only score that matters...

[Tackhead]

> Bloggers 1, Smoke-Filled Room 0

I see nothing in the articles about the bill being withdrawn. When, not if, the bill passes, the only score that matters will still be "Politburo hacks 50%+1, Taxpayers" -8,500,000,000,000 and counting.

Re:The only score that matters...

[kalirion]

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the summary? This bill is a Good thing. The corrupt hack is the guy who's delaying it.

Re:The only score that matters...

[Tackhead]

> What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the summary? This bill is a Good thing. The corrupt hack is the guy who's delaying it.

Mea culpa. I figured it'd be a bill to hide stuff, not a bill to expose stuff, and Stevens was secretly sponsoring it. Instead, it's the other way around. But the "nothing good" I see still stands: I see no evidence that the exposure is in any way, shape or form, preventing Stevens from getting what he wants. The "bipartisan" effort at porkbusters.org refers to rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats. They don't count. Only the votes on the Hill count, and they're more than happy to let Stevens block it, because it means they don't have to look bad to their constituents. Make no mistake, Stevens will get what he wants, because it favors incumbents on both sides of the aisle.

A good news, long overdue

[Anonymous Coward]

Refreshing to hear people and tech/internet coming together to win one for the people, for once. But these are so rare, though - I mean, we're not so different from the so-called "banana republics", are we?

Re:A good news, long overdue

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the culprit is exposed, but is the "secret hold" pulled off? Sorry, premature ejaculation there.

Btw, I believe Alaska is the most subsidized state, per capita, of all 50. They outta know that it's ransom we pay them in exchange for not drilling for oil and fucking up the land. That's no reason to keep the rest of 49 states in semi-banana-republic, is it?

Also, I think most bloggers are loonies with bloated egos, but some of them come through for the "people" every now and then, eh?

Re:A good news, long overdue

[Anonymous Coward]

don't get it twisted. the recipients of most of the pork in alaska are the same as just any other state. major construction, consulting and military contractors. sure some of the benefits trickle down to the general alaskan public in the form of roads or other subsidized public works or are applied directly in the form of salaries to military folks (which i'm sure is quite a substantial part of whatever figure you want to quote), but if you want to point a finger, you can point it straight to the p&l's of major corporation headquartered somewhere other than alaska.

Re:A good news, long overdue

[Anonymous Coward]

and who keeps voting that guy in each election?

Here's The Icing On The Cake

[American AC in Paris]

Now, you may ask, why would Sen. Stevens, father of the $250,000,000 "Bridge To Nowhere" , the King of Pork himself--why would this man ever want to put a hold on a bill such as this?

Turns out he's just concerned that this bill would cost too much of the good American taxpayers' money.

Seriously--the man deserves his seat in Congress, if only for being able to sling such profoundly obvious bullshit with a perfectly straight face.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who calls this "Bridge to Nowhere" at Gravina Is. obviously has never been there. Bridge to Nowhere was dreamed up as a smear campaign against pork spending yet it's still not that effective.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[alanjstr]

Why would the hold need to be secret, then? Why not vote against it?

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[Qzukk]

obviously has never been there...still not that effective.

So what you're saying is that the smear doesn't work on all 300 people who have ever been to that island?

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[American AC in Paris]

You're talking about spending $233,000,000 in federeal funds to build a bridge to serve a community of 7,500 people. That's roughly $30,000 per resident. How do you justify that, especially when there's a perfectly serviceable ferry that's been in operation for ages?

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[American AC in Paris]

If you put a hold on it, nobody votes on the measure. It goes nowhere. If you don't put a hold on it, it gets voted on, you're in the minority, and it passes into law.

Now, can you think of any impending dates of political importance that might give one of the most earmark-happy Senators in Washington reason to try and delay this sort of legislation? Delay it until, say, most of America isn't paying attention to what's going on in Washington?

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[StikyPad]

He's just smart!

"I've always felt that a person's intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic." -- Abby Adams

;)

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I wonder, how could you justify that?

I wonder if it might be because THE BRIDGE WILL BE CHEAPER TO RUN THAN THE FUCKING FERRY? Possibly?

Yes, it has a higher up-front cost, but a much, much, MUCH, MUCH lower maintanence costs than running a ferry continuously. Over the long term, it makes sense.

But in this "short-term" only country of the USofA, it's not surprising everyone's seeing the expenses up-front and not the savings down the line.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[Anonymous Coward]

It is really rather simple if you would just think about it. If you had this big 'ol bridge, it would natrually be a terrorist target. It would be the same for any large building or important piece of infrastructure.

Now that you have this target, you must defend it. How do you do this? With more tax dollars, of course!

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[SanityInAnarchy]

Anyone want to run the math on that? How much does it cost to run a ferry? How long does the bridge have to last without any kind of serious[ly expensive] problems to pay for itself? How have similar bridges lasted?

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[hey!]

I wonder if it might be because THE BRIDGE WILL BE CHEAPER TO RUN THAN THE FUCKING FERRY? Possibly?

Well, that would have to be the world's most expensive ferry service on a per passenger basis before that argument holds water; by several orders of magnitude.

223 million dollars is a lot of money, which would certainly pay for a lot of ferry operations many times over if invested at a normal rate of return. And that's assuming we need to give free ferry service; ferries normally charge tolls which cover their operating expenses.

If you don't believe that, consider this: The ferry in question serves 50 people, and covers one mile. It's probably a rather small and slow ferry. By way of contrast, Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority serves on the order of 160,000 residents of Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket, with routes that go from about two miles to something around twenty. This means they run very large ferries and run them frequently. The Authority's operating budget is $69 million dollars, and it serves 3,200 times the residents over many times the distance. And it pays for itself.

But in this "short-term" only country of the USofA, it's not surprising everyone's seeing the expenses up-front and not the savings down the line.

I love it when Republicans sound like deranged Democrats. Even accepting your dubious proposition, where would the Federal Government be if Uncle Sam pulled out his checkbook and funded every project on the basis that it creates long term cost savings for somebody (other than Uncle Sam)? That's the sort of thing you're supposed to fund with bonds.

As a liberal Democrat, I'm not against investing Federal money in communities in every case of course. But such investments should serve larger national purpose. This project is to benefit certain individuals, not the nation at large. And (surprise) it's not the residents of the Island. It's for the benefit of politically connected developers who want to make a buck treating the Federal budget as their personal piggybanks.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[AK Marc]

I wonder if it might be because THE BRIDGE WILL BE CHEAPER TO RUN THAN THE FUCKING FERRY? Possibly?

The ferry is cheaper. The ferry is also faster (the bridge will have to go some distance south before crossing and heading north again). In the weather that makes travel on the ferry unsafe, the planes can't land or takeoff either, so no one cares that they can't get to the airport. The ferry is a better solution that no one in the town even wanted to fix.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[Guysmiley777]

Here's a thought: If this bridge is SO vital to the area, slap a special assessment on the property it serves. $X per acre of land. Then the people who benefit from the bridge are the ones who pay for it.

Naaaawwww, that'd never work.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it backwards. It's not about them paying for the bridge, it's about the bridge paying them (does Ted have a chunk of land there by chance?). Make the property more accessible via road, and your land values go up astronomically.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who calls this "Bridge to Nowhere" at Gravina Is. obviously has never been there. Bridge to Nowhere was dreamed up as a smear campaign against pork spending yet it's still not that effective.

I'll admit that I've never been there and I would wager that you haven't either. I have, however looked at an aeriel view of the city courtesy of Google Maps. The ferry has to travel less then 2000 feet to drop passengers off at the airport. The airport is the only thing on that island. I suspect it would be cheaper to build a new airport on the mainland than to build a quarter billion dollar bridge.

This same small community has a shrinking population which has cut back on snow plowing due to lack of funds.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[Guysmiley777]

In a sane world that would be all the more reason the landowners should shoulder the cost of the bridge.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[The New Stan Price]

How about those darned rail road tracks that went across all that empty land across America. It's a shame that private dollars couldn't have done that instead. Oh wait...

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[mccoma]

I wouldn't hold the rail roads up as Great American Private Ventures. The amount of tax subsidies and free land was kinda staggering.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[deanj]

And I love it when the Democrats get caught with the hands in the same cookie jar...

I give you, Senator Byrd, King of Pork, another Senator that put a hold on the bill to "read it over" (same as Steven's):

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared- blogs/washington/washington/entries/2006/08/31/byr d_admits_he.html

As for deranged... Pelosi and McKinney are doing a pretty good job.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[hey!]

I give you, Senator Byrd,

No thank you, you can keep him.

He's the last living Dixiecrat. He was in the friggen' KKK. The rest of his old southern right wing compadres joined the Republican party a long time ago.

Which is not to say that Democrats are all principled and Republicans not. The Republicans have to put up with the old racist nutcases because of their 'Southern Strategy'.

No, what I find galling is that the Republicans have portrayed themselves as the fiscally responsible party, and have painted the Democrats as fiscally irresponsible. It's shocking to see what they've done now that they're in power. While I am a liberal Democrat, I pride myself as an even handed and fair person, but I'm really pissed at the Republican party for what they've done to the country. The exaggerations they used to make about Democratic policies they have turned into realities, from runaway spending to nation building. I can't imagine why the old conservative stalwarts of the party haven't broken off and created a new party by now.

In a way, I can see your point.

Wasteful spending may be even more morally reprehensible coming from Democrats than Republicans. From the extreme Republican viewpoint, the whole business of government spending is corrupt, because it takes money from deserving people in the form of taxes, and gives it to underserving people. From that point of view, taking part in the corrupt spending is more a sin of omission the commision; they're not making the corrupt situation any worse, they're just AWOL when it comes to making it better. In fact some have argued that what they're doing is hastening the end of the system by accelerating its abuses (they're going to "starve the beast") although at best this is self serving nonsense, at worst disastrous foolishness.

But when a Democrat funnels pork to his cronies, he isn't just taking money away from the hard working, productive people, he's also taking bread off the table of the needy, and shortchanging future generations. He's not just betraying a principle, he's betraying people.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[deanj]

I do have to point out that if he were Republican, he would have been drummed out of the Senate long ago for his ties to the KKK.

It's a double standard.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[deanj]

I'd also like to point out that it's morally reprehensible for Democrats OR Republicans to be doing that.

No matter what people think about their side (Demo or Repub), neither has the corner on the market when it comes to what's morally right. There's damn goofy stuff on both sides.

There are plenty of racist nutcases in the Democratic party too. Take Cythia McKinney. At least they had the insight to get rid of her. Look at all the so called Democrats that throw racist remarks at black Republican candidates.

Byrd is the same way. Sorry, but once in the KKK, always in the KKK. Like I said, if he had been a Republican, he would have been thrown out of the party long ago. Not so with the Democrats.

Is that morally right? I don't think so.

Don't even get me started at the way the Democrats have enslaved the very people they're supposed to be helping; instead they keep them down just to make sure they keep them in the party. Just witness the Democrat blockade of the latest bill to increase minimum wage. Democrats blocked it.

Keeping people down the like the most racist thing of all, and disgusting at that.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[deanj]

For more on Democrats and the minimum wage, here we have a guy doing work for the Democratic National Committee via a firm they hired; he went door to door for 37 hours, and got paid $130 after taxes, far less than the minimum wage of $6.50. Another guy worked 45 hours, and got paid $56 dollars.

Read about it here.

Another case of "Do as I say, not at I do".

But what does it mean?

[Suzumushi]

The true test now, is whether this information is as damning as it should be to Mr. Stevens (and I use the term mister loosely). Will he own up to it? Will they obfuscate the issue? Can we count on our elected representatives to be accountable? There is some serious potential for some major information breakthroughs here...they'll fight this tooth and nail I think.

Pork and gerrymandering

[Dan Slotman]

I certainly hope it is only a matter of time before some clean politicians get voted in. Since Democrats and Republicans share blame for pork-pushing, I don't know of a solution beyond knowing about the candidates for whom you vote. Unfortunately I can't see systemic changes without an end to gerrymandering. Incumbents are the only ones benefited, hence there is no motivation to eliminate it. It seems to me that politics in the United States is becoming more of a farce each election.

Re:Pork and gerrymandering

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh he's a great politician -
for Alaska! I'm sure there's enough people there who love the pork he buys them to keep voting him in. This is not a generalization about Alaskans, just the ones who voted for this guy.

ONLY Alaska can vote for the Alaskan govt representatives. And if Alaskans like him, the other 49 states don't matter. And his pork buying friends? As long as they get pork for their states, who cares about the 20 or so states with politicians NOT getting pork for them?

How much pork does your state get?

Re:Pork and gerrymandering

[rgmoore]

The problem isn't one of Gerrymandering; after all, Stevens is a Senator and Senate seats can't be Gerrymandered because they cover the entire state. Besides, Gerrymandered districts should be less pork prone, since the representative in a safe district has less need to bribe voters with lavish projects than one in a competitive district.

The real problem is that voters can easily see the benefits of porkbarrel projects ("See! We got the highway/bridge/museum/defense contract/etc. that our district wants. Isn't that great!") while the cost of the pork for other districts is hidden in the general mass of government spending. The result is that legislators who bring home the pork to a better job of getting votes than ones who are good at cutting the fat.

Re:Pork and gerrymandering

[Kaikopere]

Honestly, I don't think it has anything to do with gerrymandering. I think the Hitchhiker's Guide summed it up nicely:

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

We're stuck picking from the people who want the job, who are very unlikely to be the type of people that we want doing the job, regardless of their party affiliation. I wonder if we wouldn't be better off if Congress were run more like jury duty... your name gets pseudo-randomly selected, and off you go to do your civic duty.

Re:Pork and gerrymandering

[Vengeance]

Clean... politicians?

Does not compute!

Re:Pork and gerrymandering

[Dan Slotman]

As I see it, gerrymandering and partisanship reinforce one another. In an excessively partisan environment, it isn't worth the risk to derail your allies pork-barrel spending because you require the financial support of the party to win. As you cannot expect to win as an independent because of gerrymandering, you must toe the line painted by the senior politicians of your particular party.

I agree that the voters within a state see the benefits of pork projects and will vote for pork-providers. However, there are 100 senators, and we can expect that ninety-eight of them should resist pork spending. And yet we don't see the resistance we should expect. Therefore, my solution (as indicated above) would be to vote for candidates who resist pork barrel spending.

P.S. You are completely right that gerrymandering did not gain Stevens his position, and I wasn't trying to directly imply that.

Re:Pork and gerrymandering

[Dan Slotman]

Your quotation is apt. I am routinely frightened by how badly informed (and worse, deliberately misinformed) many of my representatives are.

Another point to consider is that many politicians have only one or two areas that they really care about. Often they do a very good job within these areas and a piss-poor job in others. As soon as policy makers begin keeping score and forget that they are granted power solely to manage the country's affairs for the benefit of the citizenry, the process of corruption begins.

Re:Pork and gerrymandering

[Lord_Dweomer]

"I certainly hope it is only a matter of time before some clean politicians get voted in."

Hi, welcome to America, you must be new here. What our political system needs is nothing short of the kind of crusade Eliot Spitzer has led against corporations. I mean...corporations and politicians are tied hand in hand on this.

Unfortunately, politics is a game built by corrupt people for corrupt people.

Bravo!!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I say we put Senator Stevens on double-secret probation.

My Apologies

[Ambiguous Coward]

As someone who was born in Alaska, raised in Alaska, got a degree in Alaska, and is now a professional in Alaska, I want to apologize on behalf of the state. Also, I'm sorry we vote Republican. There just aren't enough dense population centers to cause people to pull their heads out of their cousins' asses. :)

Re:My Apologies

[ArsonSmith]

Yea, I guess it takes people living on top of each other to get them to stop living on top of eachother.

Re:My Apologies

[captain_craptacular]

I share all those traits. I bet we know each other since you went to UAF (I see the asuaf link in your description). I got my bscs in '01...

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[Oriumpor]

It's hard to keep an accurate count, the variable keeps overflowing.

10 bucks says...

[captn_atom]

... he attaches a rider to open up drilling in ANWR once the hold is lifted.

What an idiot.

So What?

[imaginaryelf]

So what's the real consequence here?

Are his constituents going to vote him out of office at the next election?

It seems that politicians who are wrecking the country keeps getting reelected anyway.

Re:So What?

[Elemenope]

Let's say you live in the middle of nowhere, and I mean like the village that time forgot. It's cold where you live, so your village survives by stealing from other villages. Neat thing is though, this policy doesn't anger your neighbors, because the villages you are robbing aren't theirs, but some poor suckers a long way away. When your raiding parties return, they bring resoures to fix up your homes, roads, bridges, etc.

And probably for a second there, you thought I was talking about the Vikings, and not the U.S. Senate. But anyway, I digress from my original point, which was...

...if you were a member of that village, and you started raising ethical concerns about how the raiding parties do their business to give your family and others in the village warmth and food, how well do you think that argument would be received by your fellow villagers? Would they care?

Why are people sooooooo shocked these people keep getting re-elected? These guys are the Viking warriors raping and pillaging to bring home the bacon. His constituents love this stuff...and why shouldn't they? If you want this to stop, another poster might have had it right; stop federal direct taxes, and have the fed direcly dependent upon state grants for their funding. Practical? Maybe not, but it would certainly cut down on that village half a world away robbing you blind.

Maybe it doesn't even have to be so extreme. Simple rules changes would make things much better. How about instating a germaneness rule so that senators can't hang pork like christmas tree ornaments on unrelated bills? How about abolishing anonymous holds? How about reforming conference committee selection and procedures? Any one of these things alone would make pork more difficult and more visible.

Well,

[Upaut]

The only thing I can think of doing to remedy this situation is to move to Alaska to skew the vote, and get this guy out of office.

The way I see it, the FreeState program has it right, but instead of choosing a decent state to begin with, they should of chosen a state with a lot of potential, but without the minds to guide it, would of been better.

That and Alaska is just a wonder of nature...


Maybe I should start my own project, the Technocratic Liberation Project. Where well-educated, liberal minded, science minded people can go to live in peace from terrorists that firebomb labs, states that cut funding for schools, anti-abortionists that pipebomb buildings, Federal wiretapping, and the broadband monopoly. And whats perfect is, if America gets really bad, then we can leave and become our own nation, and to retort America would half to drive into Canada... Something thy would not do....

Re:Well,

[chill]

The only thing I can think of doing to remedy this situation is to move to Alaska to skew the vote, and get this guy out of office.

This will be unnecessary as Sen. Stevens is not expected to run for re-election in 2008. He is expected to retire at age 85.

Re:smoke filled room?

[ArmyOfFun]

The smoke is not from cigarettes, I know because I toured the Capitol Building. The smoke is actually from the candles light the place. The candles produce a lot of smoke because instead of being composed primarily of wax they're made of torn pieces of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

Wha???

[truthsearch]

Under Senate rules, unless the senator who placed the hold decides to lift it, the bill will not be brought up for a vote.

Any senator can anonymously hold any bill? So every Republican Senator can anonymously block any Democratic sponsored bill and vice versa? Somehow this doesn't sound right. Why, then, isn't every bill deadlocked?

Re:Wha???

[stinerman]

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/hold .htm

Its a quid pro quo type of "good old boy" agreement among those in the majority party.

Re:Wha???

[Admiral-Bell]

Yeah, this makes no sense at all. Have any of you heard of the secret hold before?

Re:Wha???

[Quantam]

Because some people act ethically? No, wait, this is congress. My bad.

Re:Wha???

[underwhelm]

A hold is an implied promise to filibuster. So when a senator places a hold on the bill, the senate generally agrees to move on rather than force the issue of an ugly, inconvenient showdown. They're then traded, logrolled, and used as bargaining chips in the legislative process.

To answer your question, it doesn't happen constantly because if it did the hold system wouldn't be an effective means of negotiations. The senate would constantly be in filibuster (if the people issuing holds follow through on their threats) and voting for cloture (to end the debate). It works because in general the senate at least wants to appear to get things done--and perhaps actually wants to get things done--and not waste a bunch of time on filibusters and attempted filibusters.

Re:Wha???

[ichigo 2.0]

Looks like the floor leader doesn't have to abide by it. So maybe people should try pressuring him/her into allowing the bill to proceed? This way Stevens has to filibuster the bill if he wants to slow it down.

Re:Wha???

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not actually how it works. Individual senators are given an immense amount of power in the Constitution. Frequently, in order to get something done, all the Senators agree to wave their rights in order to accomplish a specific set of things. These are laid out in Unanimous Consent Agreements (UCs in Hill Speak). UCs are used for everything from ending debate for the day, to limiting the number of amendments allowed to a bill, to allowing a Senator's staffer to sit on the Senate Floor, to passing a bill, to anything and everything in between. Listen to CSPAN for half an hour and you will hear Senators asking for Unanimous Consent to a dozen different things. All a hold does is says "Hey guys, I don't agree to wave my rights as a Senator." This means that a UC can't be created for that bill. That, in turn, means that the entire Senate procedure for passing a bill must be gone through. Since this is a very cumbersome process, there are very few bills, if any, that pass the Senate without the help of at least a couple of UCs.

Re:Wha???

[Archangel Michael]

"Its a quid pro quo type of "good old boy" agreement among those in the majority parties."

There, I fixed your spelling mistake.

Re:Wha???

[Admiral-Bell]

thanks for the clerification.

Re:Wha???

[stinerman]

There was no intent to make it seem like holds were a Republican beast. If/when the Democrats ever regain control of the Senate, they will be sure to use the hold to its full capacity.

I figured at least 1 person would take it that way even though the phrase "majority parties" doesn't make sense (you can't have 2 parties in the majority).

Re:Wha???

[Kirijini]

Thats not quite how it works. Unlike the House, which has a draconian rules committee that determines when and for how long something is debated and voted on, the senate has no authority structure along those lines. Instead, anything that happens in the Senate happens according to a UCA - Unanimous Consent Agreement. That means that everything that happens in the senate (in terms of scheduling) must be agreed to by everyone in the senate. A hold essentially means that one or more senators do not agree, and therefore the UCA isn't unanimous. The whole system rides on the back of filibusters, which, while overturnable with cloture votes, could theoretically be used by an obstinate senator at every opportunity to totally obstruct any action in the senate (for example, filibustering a debate on whether or not to vote, whether or not to take a break, whether or not to adjourn for the night, etc. and all of these filibusters, even if immediately clotured, could last up to 30 hours... and the senator could demand quorum, thus requiring 50 senators to constantly be in the senate during the filibuster).

So which way is better, the House Rules committee, which has near ultimate power over legislation in a legislating body in which its members (other than the speaker) ought to be peers, or the UCA system, which is pretty much egalitarian, even though it leads to secretive holds?

Re:Wha???

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see Stevens try to pull off a one-man filibuster. Really I would. Maybe the old coot could talk himself to death and get carried out feet-first and rid us of his budgetary assaults on our tax dollars. (Feingold was able to perform a one-man filibuster for 9 hours.) But Frist is respecting the hold, making Frist complicit in the hold -- or spineless in the face of a demented old man. Ladies and gentlemen of the USA, I give you... your Government!

This man HIMSELF is a series of TUBES

[unity100]

And apparently, the series never ends. Its like Shogun, or the Fugitive of 80es television.

The morons who voted for that idiot should be relieved of the right to vote.

Re:This man HIMSELF is a series of TUBES

[mugnyte]

  Sadly, Alaska is not alone in delivering boobs to elected office. However, the constitution still stands: no tests for the right to vote. Perhaps educating the populace a bit more would help.

Re:This man HIMSELF is a series of TUBES

[unity100]

I am in turkey. lots of ethnic minorities and radical inclination groups are having good education here. its not having any effect.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[Nematode]

Just to illustrate a little further where Sen. Stevens' priorities (and shame) lie, remember that this is the man who said, when the Senate voted NOT to allow drilling in ANWR earlier this year, that it was the "saddest day of his life." Remember also that his wife died in a plane crash in 1978.

Now, maybe his wife was a very nasty person, but when an 83-year old man thinks that the saddest day of his life is not getting Exxon into a wildlife preserve....

The other white meat.

[ColdWetDog]

Ted Stevens and his counterpart in the House of Representatives, Don Young, are very popular in Alaska for the very reason everyone on Slasdot is up in arms - Pork.

The Knick Arm bridge is seen as a shot in the arm for local developers and construction critters. Remember, pretty much the only economic engines in Alaska are Oil and Government. Nothing else but a bunch of trees, rocks and the occasional brown bear.

So they bring in the Pork. Christ, half of Anchorage is named Ted Stevens this or Ted Stevens that. It's a GOOD thing. Really. It's representative government at its finest....

The other way to look Mssrs. Stevens and Young is that they are pretty cheap dates. For one genuine vote in the House or Senate, you need only to bribe a couple hundred thousand people. You got the money, honey, they've got the time.

Re:The other white meat.

[SoCalChris]

I don't know, Conrad Burns has brought a lot of pork into Montana, and almost everyone I know here hates him, and can't wait to vote him out of office.

Re:The other white meat.

[kalirion]

Remember, pretty much the only economic engines in Alaska are Oil and Government.

Oil seems to be rather profitable lately. Why do they need federal funds for anything?

Re:The other white meat.

[rgmoore]

Remember, pretty much the only economic engines in Alaska are Oil and Government. Nothing else but a bunch of trees, rocks and the occasional brown bear.

I thought that there was a fair bit of fishing and tourism, too. All that Alaskan King Crab and Alaskan Salmon must come from somewhere.

Re:The other white meat.

[Qwavel]

t's a GOOD thing. Really. It's representative government at its finest....
Ouch!

It is sometimes said that the American political system, while good in structure, has become so beholden to money and self-interest that it is now one of the worst of the Western democracies.

For example, you have Jesse Helmes who was prepared to inflict terrible things on people in other countries to save a few jobs or a bit of pork in his own district (eg. tobacco). The companies involved rewarded him with the money to advertise, and the voters were prepared to sacrafice many people they couldn't see in the name of their (or their neighbors) self interest.

Now, the fact that you think this is a GOOD thing REALLY scares me.

Re:The other white meat.

[cayenne8]

"Ted Stevens and his counterpart in the House of Representatives, Don Young, are very popular in Alaska for the very reason everyone on Slasdot is up in arms - Pork."

And the only way to get rid of this, is to dry up the 'well'.

First, Let's not give the feds taxes directly!! They should have to depend fully on the states for their finances. This would not only help dry up 'pork' funds, but, might would also cut out what I find to be one of the nastiest things, having the Feds take tax dollars, then use them as blackmail over the states in order to get them to legislate laws the Feds really should have no power over. Witholding hwy funds really chaps my ass, and it is their fav. thing to do.

Lastly, the more I hear about it, maybe we need to go back to having the Senators appointed by the state's legislature rather than general elections, that would keep them more loyal to their state's interest, rather than the national political parties' interests.

Re:The other white meat.

[cmburns69]

I thought that there was a fair bit of fishing and tourism, too. All that Alaskan King Crab and Alaskan Salmon must come from somewhere.

It comes from Jamaica. I thought everyone knew that.

Re:The other white meat.

[mordors9]

And the pork will continue to roll in until we have up or down votes on all budget items. As long as individual congressmen can stick it in those huge omnibus spending bills that no one knows what is in them until months later, this practice will go on.

Re:The other white meat.

[jimbobborg]

Of course, that was also used to enforce desegregation in the South. And to lower the speed limit on highways. Works both ways.

Re:The other white meat.

[Simon Garlick]

"SOMETIMES"?

Re:The other white meat.

[WillAffleckUW]

true, Conrad Burns is very unpopular in MT, and is on the short list at the Washington Post blogs of most likely to be replaced.

Re:The other white meat.

[larry bagina]

because government (whiny liberals in the northeast) won't let them drill their oil.

Re:The other white meat.

[SeattleGameboy]

Lastly, the more I hear about it, maybe we need to go back to having the Senators appointed by the state's legislature rather than general elections, that would keep them more loyal to their state's interest, rather than the national political parties' interests.

Okay now I am confused. I thought we are all agreeing that representatives from Alaska are evil PRECISELY because they are SO LOYAL to their state's interest (i.e. Bridge to Nowhere) and have no regard for nation's overall good (i.e. deficit).

The way to remedy abuses like this is simple. Make the congress more representative.

Guys like Ted Stevens and et al can pull of stuff like this because all it takes is their own effort to get a pork item into a bill. If Congress got rid of arcane rules and procedures and adopted a simple rule - nothing gets in a bill (especially earmarks) unless the majority of Senate/House votes for it. This may not stop pork all together, but it will greatly reduce truly abusive earmarks like "the Bridge to Nowhere".

Ted Stevens only represents 1/100th of Senate. Make him act like it and much of these problems would go away.

Re:The other white meat.

[guaigean]

Lastly, the more I hear about it, maybe we need to go back to having the Senators appointed by the state's legislature rather than general elections, that would keep them more loyal to their state's interest, rather than the national political parties' interests.

You don't get it, do you? Alaskans WANT these guys in power, so having the state legislature vote vs. the general populace won't change anything. As a small population state with vast amount of resources, the only way to have a large say is to have a senator that has been in the Senate longer than others, due to the way the Senate works in regards to seniority and project leadership. Even die hard liberals know that if we lose our long term seniority with Stevens/Young, we lose a LOT of funding, including education and social programs. You seem to assert that having the state legislature choose our Senators over the general populace would change things, but it would have no effect whatsoever. If anything, it would cause politicians to ignore the general populace even more and focus only on the whims of the leaders.

Re:The other white meat.

[pikakilla]

First, Let's not give the feds taxes directly!! They should have to depend fully on the states for their finances. This would not only help dry up 'pork' funds, but, might would also cut out what I find to be one of the nastiest things, having the Feds take tax dollars, then use them as blackmail over the states in order to get them to legislate laws the Feds really should have no power over. Witholding hwy funds really chaps my ass, and it is their fav. thing to do.

Been tried before. It was called the Articles of Confederation. It turned out that (suprise suprise) no one would give any money to the federal government and that provided for an crippled central government. No money means no central military, which means no defense (state militias cannot compare to a central military, there just is not enough cohesion), which means, eventually, no country....

The whole issue of states rights has been debated throughout American history as well. In fact, we had a little tussle over it in the middle of the 19th century.

Re:The other white meat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, damn those consistant traffic laws! I demand every state have wildly different traffic laws so that traveling across the country involves a three-day course for every state!

The federal highway system is one of the very few successes of the federal government. I rather enjoy it.

Re:The other white meat.

[Fjandr]

Americans in general can be pretty scary. Then again, the same could probably be said about any country as screwed up as the US. Humans are inherently untrustworthy when given power and a lack of consequences to wielding it unjustly.

The power of the US government needs to be seriously curtailed. Unfortunately, it'll probably happen the same way other governments have been historically curtailed: through catastrophe.

Just another form of natural selection.

Re:The other white meat.

[Qzukk]

And to lower the speed limit on highways.

I guess you're trying to hammer home the "both ways" part there?

Re:The other white meat.

[dilvish_the_damned]

Remember, pretty much the only economic engines in Alaska are Oil and Government. Nothing else but a bunch of trees, rocks and the occasional brown bear.

Right, the rather largish fishing industry is nothing, logging/pulp (though government is trying pretty hard to kill this one), tourism, mining (not is big as you might think, but notable), construction and some other more minor stuffs. It just bothers me when people try to depict it as trees and rocks. Its mostly trees, tundra, muskeg, plains, mountains teeming with life, vast coastal waters, lakes, devils club, etc.. and a few people, most of which don't really like Ted Stevens.
Oh wait, when you said Alaska did you mean Anchorage?

Re:The other white meat.

[dave1g]

Congrats you just discovered the old constitution, The Articles of Confederation. Last I checked, one of hte main reasons it failed was the inability of the national government to collect taxes. Instead it had to ask states for funding. You can guess that few states saw it in their interest to pay up when others might pay less, or not at all. So none gave much money at all to the national government.

And how would state legislators be more responsive to the needs of the state than the common citizens of that state?

Re:The other white meat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean like they do in europe?

Re:The other white meat.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very good question. Alaska is one of the biggest welfare states in the USA, despite having a small population and tremendous oil wealth. The irony is the people there tend to be fairly "libertarian" and "conservative". It really makes no sense at all.

Re:The other white meat.

[ak_hepcat]

Wow. You must live and breath the pulse of the Alaskan citizenry.

Now, only being a 4th generation Alaskan, and only a mere 37 years old (fine, 36.75) I surly must have missed something.

But of all the people I know -- _nobody_ thinks the Knik Arm bridge is a "good thing." In fact, most folks
here are well aware that the only people set to benefit from it are The Stevens'. Guess whom owns the properties
involved. We're not stupid.

And most folks also don't see the need for the Ketchikan Airport bridge. The Ferry works pretty well, most of the time.
Although Ketchikan cannot grow any more as a community without increased transportation facilities. It's a toss-up for
them, unfortunately. Too bad that The Stevens went the wrong way in trying to garner support.

And you must have missed the results of the primary election. Stevens got ousted so badly, he won't ever make a comeback
in politics again. Look for a Democratic Alaska, coming soon.

Re:The other white meat.

[Jherek Carnelian]

Oil seems to be rather profitable lately. Why do they need federal funds for anything?

With nothing but cyncism to back me up, I'd say because the contracts the state government signed with the oil companies prevents the state from really cashing in on the windfall. They probably did something like cap revenues per barrel based on an expectation that oil prices would never get as high as they are now. (or rather an expectation of all kinds of campaign contributions if they made a stupid "error" like that in their contract negotiations with the oilcos).

Re:The other white meat.

[Locke2005]

Nothing else but a bunch of trees, rocks and the occasional brown bear. As a resident of Alaska for half my life, I strongly resent this remark... there are plenty of black bears and polar bears too!

I currently live in Oregon where ex-senator Hatfield is idolized for precisely the same reason -- he managed to get the Federal Government to waste lots of tax dollars in Oregon. In my mind, getting the government to spend more money in your constituency should be considered the mark of a crook, not the mark of an excellent congresscritter.

Re:The other white meat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go see your doctor. Now. Tell him/her that you have chronic sarcasm-non-detection syndrome. Here's hoping there's a cure soon.

Re:The other white meat.

[zdarnell]

Uh I believe you're talking about Frank Murkowski, yeah, that other crazy old guy.

Alaska would be hosed financially without Stevens. we don't have the population to have a meaningful sales tax or income tax. He might make some dipshit calls, but Alaskans have been having to choose the worst of two evils. Crumbling infrastructure? Or our senator making us look dumb talking about tubes. Not a great choice, but we have to make it. /lifelong Alaskan

Re:The other white meat.

[hey!]

Ted Stevens and his counterpart in the House of Representatives, Don Young, are very popular in Alaska for the very reason everyone on Slasdot is up in arms - Pork.

I can see this. But is there any point at which shame starts to kick in? To paraphrase Joseph Welch: at long last, have we left no sense of decency?

The Knick Arm bridge is seen as a shot in the arm for local developers and construction critters.

Yep. And if they shot a million taxpayer dollars my way, it would be a shot in the arm for me. The question is what national purpose does it serve?

Re:The other white meat.

[jZnat]

Too bad the Senate is supposed to deal with national and international issues. Ted Stevens should be in the fucking House, not screwing around with the Senate if all he wants to do is this pork shit.

Re:The other white meat.

[jZnat]

And you must have missed the results of the primary election. Stevens got ousted so badly, he won't ever make a comeback
in politics again. Look for a Democratic Alaska, coming soon.

If you're right, THANK GOD! Tubes man needs to get the fuck out of Congress permanently. He has to be one of the most corrupt politicians in DC as of now.

Re:The other white meat.

[Thng]

Oil seems to be rather profitable lately. Why do they need federal funds for anything?

DoD

Remember, Alaska used to be a front line of the Cold War. They have their fair share of military installations. HAARP installation, Eileson AFB, Elmendorf AFB, and probably a goodl handful of others.

Re:The other white meat.

[aaronl]

Actually, the US Constitution only allowed the Federal to collect excise and tariff. The Federal was not allowed to collect income tax, so there was no direct tax on the people.

That little money allowed the Federal to pay for the essential national level infrastructure, but not enough to do much damage to our country. It was enough to pay for a navy, occasional military actions, currency, etc. These were only the things specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Pretty much every function the Federal has today is unconstitutional, or for the few that apply, used to be so before an amendment changed it.

Yes, and after that little civil war over States Rights, Lincoln then went and tried to force an income tax, which was declared unconstitutional. Almost 60 years later some foolish Populists went and passed the 16th amendment around WWI. Then they removed States representation with the 17th, and tried to outlaw alcohol with the 18th. They were not the brightest group ever.

Re:The other white meat.

[chrisRunner7]

Lastly, the more I hear about it, maybe we need to go back to having the Senators appointed by the state's legislature rather than general elections, that would keep them more loyal to their state's interest, rather than the national political parties' interests.

Well, I think one of the problems here is that Ted Stevens is being a bit *too* "loyal" to his state's interests.

Re:The other white meat.

[Scudsucker]

Almost 60 years later some foolish Populists went and passed the 16th amendment around WWI.

Not when you consider the fact that the income tax is the fairest tax of all.

Then they removed States representation with the 17th,

Of course this makes the politicians in Congress more responsible to the voters, not less.

and tried to outlaw alcohol with the 18th.

That WAS stupid. And everyone now seems to realize that Prohibition was stupid. Unfortunatly, not many people seem to realize that our current drug policy IS Prohibition.

Re:The other white meat.

[Guppy06]

Ever read the Federalist Papers?

"It turned out that (suprise suprise) no one would give any money to the federal government and that provided for an crippled central government."

Then the problem was one of enforcement, which was addressed by Article I; "If you don't cough up your membership dues, we'll levy an (apportioned) capitation on your state's citizens directly." Of course, for the first 80 years there were moral problems with the apportionment scheme to be used, but now it's been pretty well fixed.

This was the scheme used for the first half-century of our current constitution, and the only real reasons the scheme fell by the wayside were the desire on the part of the federal government to micromanage taxation to cosolidate pork and the desire on the part of the state governments to wash their hands of taxation and let the federal government take the blame.

(Really, the example of highway funding exemplifies this; the feds get to spread the burden of pork across all states instead of just one, making it more tolerable, and the state gets to play the victim while never seriously considering funding construction on their own.)

"No money means no central military, which means no defense (state militias cannot compare to a central military, there just is not enough cohesion)"

Article I also gives Congress the power to prescribe the training regime for the state militias. It just so happens that, for the most part, they chose not to until the National Guard Act. The only real "problem" then would be the federal government's inability to order a state's militia to fight on foreign soil without that state's permission, but the dual enlistment doctrine introduced by the aforementioned Act "fixed" that.

But even then, if the problem is of a lack of cohesion, why are even the National Guard units called to serve as distinct bodies, rather than have the individuals reassigned to federal units?

Re:The other white meat.

[ocelotbob]

That WAS stupid. And everyone now seems to realize that Prohibition was stupid. Unfortunatly, not many people seem to realize that our current drug policy IS Prohibition.

With the difference being that before, they did everything legally, through the constitutional amendment process. The war on drugs came through an unconstitutional policy centered around the bullshit secondary commerce clause, which is the legacy of FDR that has caused half the messes we are in now.

Re:The other white meat.

[Scudsucker]

Yes, I wish the words "direct" and "directly" had been used in the Constitution in a couple of places. i.e. "Congress may legislate matters that directly affect interstate commerce" and eminent domain being used for "direct public use".

So none of these horseshit contortions gvts go through to claim that a pot farm in someone's basement impacts interstate commerce, or using eminent domain to clear residential land to make room for a mall so they can get the sales tax.

Re:The other white meat.

[aaronl]

Whether or not the income tax is the fairest tax is not what I'm talking about. The whole point was to limit the revenue that the Federal had access to. The States could have an income tax as high or low as they would like... just not the Federal.

The voters already had representation in Congress though the House of *Representatives*. This is why you needed approval of both houses of Congress to pass a bill to the President. After the 17th, the States had no representation in Congress, hence the rapid loss of all States Rights. It was one of the many checks and balances in place through the Constitution, and one that was (and is still) very needed.

Now on the Prohibition front, I agree with you. Not only are these laws completely inappropriate at the Federal level, they also can never work. You can't legislate a social change any more than you can (or should) legislate morality.

Re:The other white meat.

[Erixxxxx]

Youre way off.

The income tax is and has always been legal under the Constitution - its an excise tax.

You perform labor in exchange for money, youre engaging in a commercial transaction; trade, and as such it is and always has been subject to the excise clause, as much as you or I would wish it otherwise.

The first income tax, though it wasnt called such, was the tax on whiskey which started the Whiskey Rebellion. The sellers of whiskey were taxed based on how much they sold, i.e their income was taxed. There were further instances of income taxes being established for temporary periods before, during and after the Civil War.

If the subject were more esoteric I might give links, but anyone with an index finger can confirm this given Google and five minutes.

(The Civil War by the way wasnt about states rights, unless of course you mean the states rights to enslave American citizens and fire on federal troops; indirectly it was about individual rights - the right to not be owned by others. Directly, it was about a political entity, the Confederacy, attacking and firing on federal property and federal troops, namely Fort Sumpter. THAT is what started the war, and if the Confederacy had never attacked Fort Sumpter there is a strong possibility they actually would have successfully seceded.)

Re:The other white meat.

[Anonymous Coward]

no one would give any money to the federal government

And that's a bad thing? I think you're falling into the trap of beliving that centralized power is necessary or inevitable -- just as government wants you to believe, and spends billions each year trying to convince you.

If each state was its own soverign country, and no centralized monolithic power existed which could siphon ridiculous amounts of revenue thanks to its massive jurisdiction, how could there NOT be less destruction and injustice, both home and abroad? The US federal government does more harm than good, my friend -- WAY more harm than good.

Re:The other white meat.

[thoughtlover]

Lastly, the more I hear about it, maybe we need to go back to having the Senators appointed by the state's legislature rather than general elections, that would keep them more loyal to their state's interest, rather than the national political parties' interests.

Personally, I've never really been a fan of the 'appointment' system. What I'd like to see are local/state elections for judges and police. Re-election is always based on past performance. Period. Therefore, judicial and law enforcement are under the specter of the public's eye. Don't like an interpretation of the law from a judge? Think your son was handled too harshly by a couple policemen? Then, show your discontent by not electing them again next term. That is not an original thought, either. I believe Jello Biafra made mention of electing police (sheriff and local patrol.) I believe there are ballot measures in some states for electing judges and/or term-limiting them.

Re:The other white meat.

[ObiWanKenblowme]

The last time I checked, the 50 US states didn't have an equal distribution of resources. That's how.

Re:The other white meat.

[M$ Mole]

Pretty sure that was sarcasm he was using there, Chief.

Hence the "Really...." at the end of the statement.

Re:The other white meat.

[aaronl]

Quoting from the pre-14th Constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Quoting from the pre-16th Constitution: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

That says that to do a constitutional income tax, that you would need to tax based on population. Further, income tax is *not* an excise, it is a direct tax. A direct tax is one imposed directly upon an individual. These can be such things as a wage or salary, and various forms of personal compensation.

The 1895 SCOTUS decision found the income tax, in part, unconstititional not because of it being an income tax, but because it was a direct tax that was not *apportioned*.

Also, the Civil War was 100% about states rights. It might make you warm and fuzzy to think that it was about slavery, but that would be a lie. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move by Lincoln to strengthen the position of the North over the South. It also was intended to create an insurgency against the South from the freed slaves. Go read some primary source material on the topic.

Seriously, for your five minutes of Google searching, you could have refuted your own argument. The points supporting it are, unsurprisingly, largely from the IRS. It required a constitutional amendment (the 16th) to get the Supreme Court to back off the topic. A little actual independant thought should make one think that *maybe* there was a reason for that.

Re:The other white meat.

[ak_hepcat]

Not enough sleep.

Murkowski is out. Stevens probably in the next election.

Sigh.

Re:The other white meat.

[Scudsucker]

The whole point was to limit the revenue that the Federal had access to. The States could have an income tax as high or low as they would like... just not the Federal.

An overly draconian solution to pork and crazy military spending. There's a lot of national infrastructure and space exploration that never would have happened without large federal budgets.

After the 17th, the States had no representation in Congress, hence the rapid loss of all States Rights.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Senators from Kansas aren't selected by voters in New York or by Congress in DC, they're selected by the voters of Kansas. They represent the state of Kansas every bit as much now as before the 17th amendment, they're just selected by the voters as opposed to the state legislature. I don't see how we'd have any fewer partisan issues or problems with pork and corruption if we used the old system.

From the Wikipedia Article

[TheRaven64]

In his speech on the senate floor, Stevens threatened to quit Congress if the funds were removed from his state.

It sounds like they missed an opportunity there...

And the best part is...

[MarkusQ]

The thing I like best about this story is that its part of a larger reframing of the conflict, from a red-team vs. blue-team battle where you're stuck choosing the lesser of two evils to a more clear-cut battle between We The People and those who would like to take advantage of us.

As a life long Republican that can't stand Bush, I probably have deep ideological difference with half (or more) of the people who worked on this, but I respect not only their right to hold opinions that differ from mine, but to know where their tax dollars are going, and who doesn't want them to know.

--MarkusQ

Hand out the salt

[RyoShin]

"Sen. Stevens does have a hold on the bill," said the spokesman, who would only speak on the condition he not be named.

While I wouldn't be terribly surprised it was him, an "unnamed spokesman" shouldn't be taken at full face value.

If it is him, then the weight of the interturbes on his shoulders will hopefully make him recant. But don't be surprised if it's not.

TPM has/had a campaign to contact all the Senators to get responses. I don't seem him on the list of updates, but who's to say that someone that is on the list of "not him/hers" isn't lying?

In any case, I hope that whatever prick placed this "secret block" (just what the hell is that, anyway?) lifts it so we can get this database bill passed. We would take a great step forward in repairing this country if we could easily find the frivilous spendatures and who commissions them.

Re:Hand out the salt

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, bloggers didn't discover that Stevens was the culprit from calling the Senate offices. Someone picked it up from a speech from Sen. Tom Coburn that was reported in an Arkansas paper. Coburn specifically named Stevens as the Senator responsible for the hold. TFA is an example of misplaced blogger triumphalism.

The "do-nothing" theory of government

[Anonymous Coward]

and do EVEN LESS for the people once they got in

I've been half-seriously theorizing for several years now that the best thing any legislator could do lately is take a vacation. They can't dream up as many crazy laws or appropriations that cause more problems than they solve when they're fishing with the family back in their home (or in many cases, adopted-because-the-people-there-would-elect-them) state. Work out a budget, review any international business that has come up, pass a minimal number of laws deemed absolutely necessary for new technology or other special cases, then get your butt out of Washington before you start thinking that place is a typical American town filled with typical Americans.

Re:The "do-nothing" theory of government

[Ruff_ilb]

Many legislators DO, and they do it ALL THE TIME; most of them, once elected, almost immediately go back home for extended periods of time to show their presence, and make it seem as if they're helping out their community. That ability, coupled with the massive political machinery available, forms to provide the enormous power of the political incumbency.

I doubt a single congressperson has ever considered DC a "typical American town" once in office; the dynamic is completely different than anywhere else in the nation - really, this has all been discussed and debated long ago.

By the way, I highly recommend Smith's 'The Power Game' for anyone even remotely interested in the inner workings of DC. Although it is slightly dated in terms of the facts it presents, the theories and precepts are all still functional today.

One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[raehl]

The problem with Pork is for any given piece of pork, there's a politician whose district wants that pork. We may all think that $223 million on a bridge to nowhere is a waste of money, but Alaska voters, the guys who keep putting Stevens back in office, think it's not an altogether horrible way to work down Alaska's federal tax deficit (more money paid in federal taxes than received in federal benefits).

In a sense, getting pork for his constituents is your representative's JOB. Would be nice if they got $223 million for, say, better teacher pay or something though.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[JesseL]

If true, that's some mind bending logic. Shouldn't Alaskans want better than to simply reduce their tax deficit? Who cares if you have less money flowing out of the state if it's just going to be spent on something stupid?

I'd rather just pay less taxes. It would benefit me lot more than a silly numbers game.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[raehl]

And I see I have read the chart backwards - Alaska is actually #2 for MOST federal benefits received per dollar in taxes paid. So Stevens is doing a very good job getting federal dollars for Alaska.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[rgmoore]

We may all think that $223 million on a bridge to nowhere is a waste of money, but Alaska voters, the guys who keep putting Stevens back in office, think it's not an altogether horrible way to work down Alaska's federal tax deficit (more money paid in federal taxes than received in federal benefits).

That might be true if Alaska had a federal tax deficit, but they don't. According to The Tax Foundation, Alaska paid a total of about $4.1 billion in federal taxes in 2004 but received about $8.4 billion in federal spending. The only state to get a higher return on its tax dollars was New Mexico ($9.2 billion out and $19.9 back). A lot of that, of course, is precisely because Alaska's Congresscritters are so good at bringing home the pork.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[Volante3192]

The heck is New Mexico doing!? It's been #1 for the past two decades according to that. Los Alamos can't be bringing in THAT much...

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[Kesch]

I live in New Mexico and I'm not sure where all that is going. Although I am told that Dominiche is good a bringing home the bacon. However, we do have quite a few government facilities here.

- Los Alamos National Lab
- Sandia National Lab
- White Sands Missile Range
- Kirtland Airforce Base
- Some more big military bases I can't remember

I'm also not sure if our fed taxes paid is also a little low because of our large casino industry that is run on Indian reservations and thus pays no taxes.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[rgmoore]

A big chunk of it is that they aren't paying that much in. New Mexicans paid $5717 per capita in federal taxes this year vs. a national average of $8050; the only states with lower per capita taxes were Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia. Combine that with a whole bunch of federal stuff- the feds own a large chunk of the state- and you wind up with lots of money coming in.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[AK Marc]

That might be true if Alaska had a federal tax deficit, but they don't. According to The Tax Foundation, Alaska paid a total of about $4.1 billion in federal taxes in 2004 but received about $8.4 billion in federal spending.

I can't find where it states how much tax is paid from the State of Alaska for the oil pumped here. My understanding added to my reading of the taxes they sum up indicates to me that Alaska is, indeed, net losing money to the feds. They have lots of other taxes explicitly laid out, but I couldn't find the oil taxes. Also, I disagree with assigning federal expendatures as pork. Highway funds should be included, they are gifts to the state to essentially spend however they want. However, military bases shouldn't be included. Alaska should have a larger military presence. If we assign a value to oil and such, or if we have an equal expendature for all coastline for the Coast Guard or something like that, Alaska is getting royally screwed on federal returns. Also, any ICBM launched from North Korea towards California or New York will pass over Alaska or quite near. As such, the drones to be shot down are launched from here, and he missile defense will have a presence here as well. Alaska is a unique state, and expenses will reflect that.

If we are counting federal expendatures per square mile, Alaska is getting screwed, not winning the lottery. Oh, and has anyone else noticed that "red" states waste the most federal dollars and the "blue" states waste the least, despite the claims by the "red" party that they want to reduce spending?

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[yndrd1984]

If we are counting federal expendatures per square mile, Alaska is getting screwed, not winning the lottery.

This is per capita.

You're right in that straight "taxes vs. spending" stats aren't too informative, but this is a state that pays people to live there! If they're not willing to spend less than 1% of their fund to build the bridge, they probably don't need it that badly. I mean the US is in debt, and they're sitting on cash, why are they begging the rest of us for money?

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[Bob9113]

I can't find where it states how much tax is paid from the State of Alaska for the oil pumped here.

Can you expand on this for me? I'm curious, because it's a complex issue. Alaska was purchased by the Fed, and I think it is reasonable, therefore, to see the oil in Alaska as,at least in part, a US owned resource. But that in itself is an interesting question - who gets the money for the mineral rights? Some of the drilling is on national land, does that money go to the Fed? Is any of the drilling on state land? Who gets that money? Is any on private land? Who gets that money?

It seems that the US, which purchased the land, should get something from the mineral rights. Saying that all taxes on oil paid by Alaska are inherently moneys owed Alaska is overly simplified. If the US gets 100% of the money from mineral rights, then it might be obvious that Alaska is owed something. If Alaska gets 100% from the mineral rights, I think a very strong argument could be made that Alaska should be paying something to the US, perhaps in taxes, on that money.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[mccoma]

If you are a fed running a grant, you make sure one of the sites is in New Mexico and you make sure to do your site visit during a major local holiday (take a guess). It is sometimes really that simple. Almost as bad as the HUD conference in Hawaii (where there was no HUD housing at the time - neutral ground I guess).

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[AK Marc]

Alaska was purchased by the Fed, and I think it is reasonable, therefore, to see the oil in Alaska as,at least in part, a US owned resource.

Well, Alaska was bought by the feds, so the feds still own my house here? I hate to think I spent all that money for something I don't own.

It seems that the US, which purchased the land, should get something from the mineral rights. Saying that all taxes on oil paid by Alaska are inherently moneys owed Alaska is overly simplified.

Sure it is overly simplified, but then so is claiming that none of the taxes paid on the oil to the federal govermnent count as taxes paid from Alaska. I'm not arguing who owns it, who should get the benefit from it, or anything like that. I'm pointing out that the stupid tax comparison that someone else posted doesn't take into account all taxes paid. Alaska pays more to the feds than it receives. Period. The report is wrong, and I'm telling you why.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[AK Marc]

You're right in that straight "taxes vs. spending" stats aren't too informative, but this is a state that pays people to live there! If they're not willing to spend less than 1% of their fund to build the bridge, they probably don't need it that badly.

So states that are fiscally responsible (not saying Alaska is, but using it as an example) should be punished for it. After all, you are calling for a hold on federal money until the states are bankrupt, right? Then I guess we screwed up making a Permanent Fund to store our savings. We should have been as irresponsible as the rest of the US and spend all the money as soon as it comes in. Or better yet, be like the feds and spend more than we take in. On behalf of all Alaskans, I apologize for not being as "responsible" as the federal government when it comes to spending money.

Oh, and if you are jealous of the Dividend, you can always move up here. It's available to all residents. Last years check will be here in just about one month.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[Copid]

So states that are fiscally responsible (not saying Alaska is, but using it as an example) should be punished for it. After all, you are calling for a hold on federal money until the states are bankrupt, right?

No, I have no problem returning a tax surplus to the taxpayers. I do have a problem with doing that instead of contributing to what you claim is important infrastructure while getting federal dollars instead. As the grandparent said, if it's important, the locals should be able to raise at least a few percentage points on the total cost of the project. Federal dollars to help out important local projects that are of arguable national benefit are great. Federal dollars to help out a project that the locals don't think is important enough to spend any money on is not. Any purchase is worthwhile if it's 100% other people's money. That's why insurance payouts have copays and deductibles.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[AK Marc]

No, I have no problem returning a tax surplus to the taxpayers. I do have a problem with doing that instead of contributing to what you claim is important infrastructure while getting federal dollars instead.

Ah, ok. So I'll make sure to suggest that we don't payout the dividends. Instead, we should be hoarding the surplus and taking the federal money. If we pay out a single dollar in dividends, then we should obviously refuse all federal money. In fact, they count military bases as federal funds to a state. We should ban federal presence from our state until we are unable to afford our own defense.

Don't forget that Alaska has the most federal land of any state, so all the national parks, preserves, forests, and refuges should be abandoned by the feds as well. We wouldn't want any of your money accidentally going to a state that can afford a tax rebate.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[Bob9113]

Well, Alaska was bought by the feds, so the feds still own my house here?

Was the house there when the Fed bought Alaska? If so, and noone has yet bought it from the Fed, then the answer is at least, "maybe."

I hate to think I spent all that money for something I don't own.

Ahh, I see. So you bought your house. That would make it yours as far as I know.

Did Alaska buy the oil fields? Did Alaska buy the mineral rights? Are we talking about pumping from federal land, state land, or private land?

If you can't answer those questions, that's fine, simply say, "I don't know." I don't know either.

Alaska pays more to the feds than it receives. Period. The report is wrong, and I'm telling you why.

No, you're not. You're saying, "the Fed doesn't own my house in Alaska, therefore it does not own the mineral rights in Alaska either." That is not telling me why the report is wrong, it is a non-sequiter.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[Copid]

No, no. I'm arguing that if you can't pay for even a part of your own basic local infrastructure, you can't afford the tax rebate you're so proud of. Feel free to take federal dollars for transportation. It's a perfectly legitimate use of them in many circumstances. However, if you can't be bothered to pay for *any* of a project at all, even when you have a budget surplus to pay out dividends to state residents, exactly what justifies having the federal government pay for 100% of what is traditionally a shared responsibility (or entirely local) project?

Military bases support the common welfare and are paid for by federal money in every state. Bridges are less common goods and are generally funded largely by local money. Why should a bridge with no obvious nationwide benefits be funded entirely by federal tax dollars, especially when the state government is clearly not impoverished? If you have enough money to pay "dividends" but you're not willing to foot the bill for even 5% of the cost of a bridge, the bridge just isn't important enough to take $300M out of the national economy to pay for it.

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[AK Marc]

No, you're not. You're saying, "the Fed doesn't own my house in Alaska, therefore it does not own the mineral rights in Alaska either." That is not telling me why the report is wrong, it is a non-sequiter.

I'm saying taxes are paid from within the state of Alaska to the federal government that are not in the report. Period. Then there were questions of whether those taxes should be paid at all. I answered the unrelated question while, at the same time, addressing the initial issue. The report is wrong because it does not include a large classification of taxes. That was my only point. Since you consider the discussion of what some people think should or should not be paid be as irrelevant to the basic point, I will let that discussion go. Now, from the numbers I have, there is enough tax paid from the operation of the oil fields such that Alaska does pay more to the feds in taxes than it receives.

Here's the actual quote

[ad0gg]

The internet is not something you just dump a bunch of goverment records on for everyone to search through. It's not a truck. Its a series of tubes.

- Senator Stevens

Re:Here's the actual quote

[mgblst]

Exactly, he is just concerned about the Internet - You can have too much information you know. One more site and it would slow everything else down. It is possible that he really thinks like this.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never been married, have you?

Be afraid, he's trying to get allies in WA state

[WillAffleckUW]

The Senator from Alaska is the primary funding assistance for the GOP candidate for the US Senate in WA State, too.

They're trying to sneak under the radar and pretend they're moderate, but they're not.

Seeber's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Pork is just jobs for Americans, and is no problem at all. The real problem is that taxes are taken out of property and income instead of directly from the FED for the crime of printing money.

Re:Seeber's Theorem

[Dan Slotman]

The problem with pork is that it is wealth redistribution with the sole purpose of benefiting those in power. Federal funds are collected from the taxes of citizens of every state (and via printing money as you point out). However, federal funds are not distributed equally to every state, and pork is by definition a frivolous expense.

Re:Seeber's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The problem with pork is that it is wealth redistribution with the sole purpose of benefiting those in power.

If the benefit is to gain votes, that's fine with me. If the benefit is to build a bigger campaign chest through bribery from corporations, that's less OK with me. But that's a matter of campaign finance reform, not pork reform.

Federal funds are collected from the taxes of citizens of every state (and via printing money as you point out).

Actually, the way it's currently set up, the FED is separate and pays no taxes, which to me is a problem as well, but once again a separate one from Pork.

However, federal funds are not distributed equally to every state, and pork is by definition a frivolous expense.

To me, nothing that provides an American with a job in the current economic war we're embroiled in thanks to the WTO is a frivolous expense. It's the federal government's duty to provide for the common welfare- all the better if we get infrastructure improvements in return. NOT to do projects like this is derelection of duty on the part of the government.

Re:Seeber's Theorem

[krlynch]

the way it's currently set up, the FED is separate and pays no taxes, which to me is a problem as well

The Federal Reserve Banks and System may not pay taxes, per se (the System is an independent governmental body after all), but it does turn over the vast majority of the System's yearly "profits" to the Treasury of the United States: http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqf rs.htm. The Fed pays (by law) 6% in "dividends" on the stock that chartered banks are required to purchase (and can't sell), and pays all it's own expenses: same FAQ. The rest of it's net income is transfered to the Treasury at the end of the year. That amounted to just over $21B in 2005: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongres s/annual05/ar05.pdf, Table 10, Page 282. Total transfers to the Treasury since the System's inception in 1914 has exceeded $589B, Table 11, Page 287.

Re:Seeber's Theorem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Of course, since the mandate by that web page is 25% to: conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices, I would charge that they've failed in thier mission EVERY YEAR SINCE THEIR INCEPTION, and thus should simply be brought back under the direct control of Congress, who should simply print enough money each year to cover the federal budget. The rest of the economy will get by just fine with no taxes and on the money spent by the federal government- cutting out any need for most of the federal bureaucracy in collecting taxes and fees.

Re:Seeber's Theorem

[808140]

Wow dude, you really need to read an economics textbook. I'm not saying that to be cheeky or insulting, but what you're suggesting would destroy the US. First off, "full employment" is an economic term that does not mean "100% of all people employed." This may seem weasily to you at first, but the reason is simple: due to frictional unemployment, it is not possible to have sustainable 100% employment (or even 100% employment at all, probably) in an economy which depends on the market to assign jobs. 100% employment is possible in a planned economy, but the US isn't a planned economy.

In case you're not aware, frictional unemployment refers to unemployment that is the result of "shopping around." When you look for a job, you typically have several leads but unless you're absolutely desperate for income, you're unlikely to take the first job offered to you -- you'll look around, see what else is available, see if there's anything better. On the other side of the fence, employers do the same thing: they don't take the first job applicant that responds, but instead shop around for a while to see who the best applicant is. How long this process lasts depends on how badly the worker needs a job and how badly the employer needs an employee. Frictional unemployment is not the only kind of unemployment. Obviously, you can have unemployment as a result of structural changes in the economy (buggy whip manufacturers, for example, had a needless skillset after the rise of the automobile, and were thus structurally unemployed) and unemployment due to overall poor economic conditions, but it is important to recognize that even if everything is completely hunky-dory in the economy and there is a job for everyone, there will still be a certain amount of frictional unemployment.

The result is that 100% employment is not an achievable goal, so instead economists talk about full employment as meaning the full natural rate of employment, not including people who are frictionally unemployed. I believe full employment in the US is estimated to be around 95% of the labour force.

Of course, 95% of the population is not employed, but it's important again to realise that a large percentage of the population is not considered part of the labour force by economists. People in the labour force include people working and people looking for work -- something like only 60% of the US is employed at any given time, but that's because there are lots of children, old people, students, bums, and other folks that for whatever reason are not actively seeking employment. They are not considered "unemployed" by economists because they are not participating in the labour market.

Further, consider that the Fed is helpless to do anything at all about structural unemployment, which results when the structure of the economy changes and results in people being unemployed because their skillset is no longer required by the labour market (the aforementioned buggy whip manufacturers lost their jobs for this reason.) Structural unemployment is a reality in a dynamic economy -- those VAX/VMS experts are out of a job these days, unless they learned some other, more marketable skill in the meantime. The Fed is helpless to stop this, so when they talk about bringing about full employment, you have to be fair and recognize that there are some kinds of employment they can't do anything about, nor should they be expected to.

What they can help with is cyclical unemployment, at least theoretically. Cyclical unemployment is a result of the natural recession-boom-peak-bust cycle: during a recession, people lose their jobs. The fed can temper how eratic the business cycle is with countercyclic monetary policy. When we enter a recession, the fed generally buys US treasury securities on the open market, and when we enter a boom, they sell them. This stimulates the economy during a recession and tempers it during a boom (because when the fed "buys" something, it creates money out of thin a

Re:Seeber's Theorem

[Harry Coin]

Wait a second, that reply was well-written, informative, and moderate.

I think you're in the wrong place...

Secret Hold not in the Constitution

[NiteShaed]

put on 'secret hold' using a procedure that does not appear to be mentioned in the Constitution

Actually, it is, but it's a secret. It's printed on the back, in invisible ink, next to the map....

Yea for Blongers???

[DAldredge]

Twelve days ago, at a town meeting in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) accused Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) of obstructing his porkbuster-database bill with an anonymous hold.

That's according to an Aug. 18 article in the Fort Smith (Ark.) Times Record:

One of the senators most criticized for his personal projects, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has a hold of his own on Coburn's bill to make public the spending patterns of the government. Called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, the legislation calls for the creation of a database open to the public where citizens can track government spending.

"He's the only senator blocking it," Coburn said of Stevens.

Coburn's office was not available for comment this evening.

The article has gone largely unnoticed in recent days, as hundreds of bloggers and blog-readers (at TPMm and elsewhere) have called Senate offices in an effort to determine who placed the "secret" hold on Coburn's bill. The piece does not turn up in a Nexis search, although it is in Google.

Stevens has been the odds-on favorite since the hunt for the Holder Who Dare Not Speak His Name began.

But did he really do it? Well, he had a motive: As the paper and others have noted, Stevens and Coburn have clashed before -- in particular over Stevens' now-legendary "bridge to nowhere." Coburn attempted (and failed) to block the $233 million boondoggle. And revenge certainly fits the senior Alaskan's m.o. "Stevens can play rough," the Seattle Times noted in June. "Despite denials from his staff, he retaliates - and doesn't mind waiting years to do so."

Stevens' office has so far refused to comment on the hold. Ninety-five other senators have confirmed they were not responsible.

Re:Yea for Blongers???

[Anonymous Coward]

OP should really have the decency to cite the source. Being someone with a a low Slashdot number, the OP should know better. For shame.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[solafide]

Truly when I saw the headline, I wondered why we were reporting on the wiretap-illegality ruling this late... I'd say more of Bloggers 1, Smoke-Filled Room 1+ (because we don't know what else is happening in other smoke-filled rooms.)

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[damiena]

Dodongo hate smoke!

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[MarkusQ]

Look, this is great, go bloggers, hurray for our side. But I've gotta say, "Smoke-Filled Room 0" is a tad optimistic. I mean, if only, right?

Yeah, you're right.

But I was jazzed about it when I submitted it, and doubly so because a few days when the whole thing started it looked like such a hopeless undertaking. I mean, starting from scratch, what do you thing the odds of getting congress critters to admit something like this is? And how long would you expect it to take?

--MarkusQ

Lake Woebegon effect

[plopez]

There's this thing referred to as the 'Lake Woebegon Effect'.

People tend to over rate themselves and those close to them as 'above average'.

Soooo... while people tend to flunk public schools, they tend to give *their* schools C's and B's.

While they tend to rate Congress as a den of drunks, maniacs, thieves and idiots; *thier* congress person is 'OK'.

So your statement My new policy on voting is to always vote out an incumbent, unless I've been especially happy with his performance. is actually a good example of this effect. In fact they count on it; talking about 'those people in Washington' while not bothering to mention the fact that your congress critter *is* 'one of those people in Washington'.

No prisoners, no quarter (they don't give it to you, now do they?). It's time to sweep out the house!

Re:Lake Woebegon effect

[cmburns69]

So your statement My new policy on voting is to always vote out an incumbent, unless I've been especially happy with his performance. is actually a good example of this effect. In fact they count on it; talking about 'those people in Washington' while not bothering to mention the fact that your congress critter *is* 'one of those people in Washington'.

I would like nothing more than to see my elected representives get the boot. I belong to the state that elected the likes of Orrin Hatch and Chris Cannon.

I, on the other hand am well above average.

Re:Lake Woebegon effect

[pikakilla]

My new policy on voting is to always vote out an incumbent, unless I've been especially happy with his performance.

The problem with this is that power inside of congress is based on senority, so if everyone but a few (consistent) members were voted out every term, those members could use their power for less than ethical means (bills never making it out of committee, tabled, not granted time on the floor, etc etc).

"The time has come...

[Lurker2288]

for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me."

Senator Ted should be our new Ambassador to Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

And the fine Iraqi security force should keep him perfectly safe.

Yeah,

[benhocking]

We have Senators George "Macaca" Allen and John "not Mark" Warner.

Ok, but....

[crhylove]

Is anybody going to actually press charges and put this guy in jail? Can we PLEASE start jailing all the politicians that are breaking the constitution left and right, STARTING with every one who voted for the patriot act?

These people need to go to jail. How do we get them there?!?!

rhY

Re:Ok, but....

[HotBlackDessiato]

I don't even have mod points to contribute to the cause, but Good Luck!

Re:Ok, but....

[Fuzzums]

I think revolution is the only option. "Western" governments all over the western world are acting in their best interest and not in the interest of the general public. Or at least not in the way the general public expects.

Revolution is the only option, but I guess you go to jail for that.

Re:Ok, but....

[The New Stan Price]

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is the one who introduced the bill. He's known that Stevens had put a hold on it (perfectly legal btw, part of the senate rules) for two weeks now. He stated so in OKC two weeks ago. Please, enough with the drama.

Re:Ok, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we PLEASE start jailing all the politicians that are breaking the constitution left and right, STARTING with every one who voted for the patriot act?

Jail for treason? I'd prefer they stand in front of a firing squad. And don't stop at the legislative branch, the #1 traitor is Bush, and I'd also add members of the Supreme Court who rule that 175 years is in any way "limited" and that "interstate commerce" can cover something that is illegal under Federal law.

I'd liks to see the President, most members of Congress and the Senate, and most if not all the Supreme Court impeached and tried for treason. When they're convicted, execute them.

Call and politely complain

[claydoh]

I just called and asked politely that Senator Stevens remove his hold on Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. I encourage everyone to do the same.

The Honorable Ted Stevens
United States Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3004
(202) 224-2354 FAX

Re:Call and politely complain

[HotBlackDessiato]

...and are you a voting state citizen of Alaska?
If not, you support the terrorists as far as Stevens could care.

Re:Call and politely complain

[mindwar23]

Alternatively drop him a line through his handy email page. "If you are not an Alaskan, may I suggest that contacting the elected representatives from your own state might bring about a quicker address of your issues." -- Ted Stevens

Re:Call and politely complain

[$uperjay]

I tried, but I think my message got stuck in the tubes somewhere.

He's also Mr Broadcast Flag, and Mr Web Censorship

[ntk]

The latest version of Steven's telecom reform bill has the broadcast flag, the RIAA's audio flag, and compulsory web labelling for US adult sites. The bill is currently unpopular among some senators because there's no network neutrality provisions -- but there's a lot more in there that stinks.

More information at the EFF. Please write to your senator, and tell them to stand against Steven's bill.

Boycot Alaskan tourism industry....

[HotBlackDessiato]

A boycot is a way to effectively voice displeasure at this guys 'contributions'. As has been pointed out, he brings home the pork, he's good at his job....so until:

pork_bucks are less than tourism_bucks

nothing changes(i.e. screwing the rest of the nation is fair game...and well played I might add)

Re:Boycot Alaskan tourism industry....

[wkitchen]

Ok. I hereby declare that I will NOT be spending my vacation in Alaska this winter.

Gee, who knew protesting could be so painless.

Conspiracy!!!

[Intron]

It looks like someone has also put a secret hold on the porkbusters website!

Re:Conspiracy!!!

[wizkid]

Damn you people! You went and /.'ed the site!
Durn Commie Geeks!

For Ya'all Who Don't Know Ted Stevens

[Greyfox]

Linky

The law of unintended consequences

[A nonymous Coward]

An unfortunate side effect of turning the rascals out as often as possible is that someone will take up the void. What void? you ask ... the power void. It turns out that rookie politicians need guidance, amd even if they don't actively seek it out, they are at least unusually susceptible to its influence, and when there are few experienced politicians to supply that guidance, the lobbyists step in where they see the chance.

I still vote against incumbents and resign myself to the lobbyists having more influence. I wish it weren't so, but it sure appears to be so.

A little mysogenistic aren't we?

[Svartalf]

To be sure, there's bad marriages. There's also good ones.
Give and take. You probably ought to try it someday- you might
find it great...

It's the chili festival

[MarkusQ]

The heck is New Mexico doing!? It's been #1 for the past two decades according to that. Los Alamos can't be bringing in THAT much...

It's the chili festival. Quite simple, really:

1. Invite federal officials down to sample the local produce
2. Offer to fetch them a glass or three of water as soon as you're done with your spiel about your pet project.
3. Profit!

--MarkusQ

More on Senatorial holds

[snowwrestler]

First of all, any Senator can block almost any bill already, using a filibuster. So it's not like this is a new concept.

Furthermore a "hold" is not secret to everyone; otherwise it would be pointless. The Senate leader is informed by the cloakroom that Senator so-and-so has placed a hold on Bill X. And it's rarely a "secret" within the halls of the Senate who placed the hold and why...it typically flows from dissention that is already there. Most Senators and staff can guess or find out who placed the hold. That does not mean they will share it with the public.

The hold process is just one of many ways the Senate operates to get things done. There are finely graded degrees of escalation in a debate--necessary in a legislative body that can be stopped cold by any one person. Think of the filibuster as a nuke and you'll start to get it...there needs to be many levels of diplomatic tools below that, or shit will blow up too easily.

The "hold" is just one of those tools--a way for a Senator to demonstrate that they are more than a little unhappy, and to slow down the process until they are satisfied. It's effective precisely because it usually is back-channel...so it avoids pointless public posturing, and allows the people to compromise out of the public eye. This is not always a bad thing...think of the difference between how people act in normal life and how they act on a reality TV show. Putting people under the microscope 100% of the time distorts their decision-making process. The Constitution doesn't require all deliberation to be open. Our system of government calls for the election of leaders, and allows us to petition them. But it is designed, on purpose, to provide some insulation for the elected leaders.

Re:More on Senatorial holds

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, any Senator can block almost any bill already, using a filibuster. So it's not like this is a new concept.

Furthermore a "hold" is not secret to everyone; otherwise it would be pointless. The Senate leader is informed by the cloakroom that Senator so-and-so has placed a hold on Bill X.

I agree with much of your post, but the points above are just wrong and bizarre, respectively. A Senator cannot block a bill via filibuster by himself; he needs to get 39 of his peers to agree to keep the debate going.

Secondly, a piece of information known to only two people is generally considered a secret. I know the saying, "In Washington, if two people know it, it's not a secret", but that's just a saying.

Re:More on Senatorial holds

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

It's effective precisely because it usually is back-channel...so it avoids pointless public posturing, and allows the people to compromise out of the public eye. This is not always a bad thing...think of the difference between how people act in normal life and how they act on a reality TV show.

What a shit political system.

Re:More on Senatorial holds

[MulluskO]

So how does it get un-blocked?

Re:More on Senatorial holds

[MulluskO]

So how does it get un-blocked?

The U.S. Senate is a series of tubes.

It gets tangled up with all these things going on commercially.

Re:More on Senatorial holds

[It's all Krista's Fa]

2nd Amendment.

A bit of demotivation...

[TCQuad]

Power corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But it rocks absolutely, too.

oh oh, now it's going to be put on

[geekoid]

double secret hold.

Re:America - Best government money can buy (tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the government serves the people, not vice versa.

Ha Ha! Mod Parent +5 Funny!

That is actually a great idea, but it doesn't seem to work that way. You don't live here, do you?

Re:He's also Mr Broadcast Flag, and Mr Web Censors

[wizkid]

I have a better idea! Lets set him and the VP up on a hunting trip in the Alaska Wilderness!

Well, writing your senator and representitives isn't a bad idea ether though.

Four parties doesn't help, either.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not necessarily a problem with just two parties. Corruption is even a massive problem when you have four or more parties involved.

In Canada, there are four major political parties holding seats in parliament at the: the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois. There is also a somewhat popular Green Party, but they do not (yet) hold a seat in parliament.

Nevertheless, corruption is a major problem in Canadian politics. There was a recent scandal involving Liberal cronyism. Many people are suspicious of how much influence the Republican Party in the US has over the policies of Stephen Harper and the currently-governing Conservative Party. The NDP's involvement with the various unions has often raised questions.

The ideal system has no political parties whatsoever. Each individual candidate is an independent, representing their riding. They vote independently on issues as they see fit. There's no towing the party line, or any of that nonsense. If an MP's constituents are in favor of a bill, the MP support it. If they are not, then there is no support. If a bill is pressing enough, then enough of the MPs will support it, and it will pass.

They don't count, until the do.

[MarkusQ]

porkbusters.org refers to rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats. They don't count.

This has been a very common assumption throughout history. It is a safe assumption, up until that point where it is not. I don't care who you are, getting 297,000,000 people pissed at you is not a good idea.

So the question our congress critters need to be asking themselves is "Do I feel lucky?"

And so We The People say to them "Well, punk, do you?"

--MarkusQ

Re:smoke filled room?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about puppies and kittens. The candles are made of puppies and kittens !!!

0 to 1????

[dangitman]

I think that the author of this story's title may be somewhat ignorant of the real world. The "smoke filled room" contains people in power, who most of the time get anything they want, and can get away with crimes, murder, extortion - at the same time as having women throw themselves at their feet, and countless people to do their bidding, while swimming in pools of champagne.

On the other hand, you have bloggers. The name alone says enough about their power, prestige and effectiveness.

I'd say the scores are more like: Bloggers 1, Smoke-filled room 9,000,000,000.

Already done.

[Elemenope]

It's called Vermont. Also, as a bonus, really good maple syrup.

Mod parent up...

[g3rr!t]

Thanks for the history lesson, wish I had some mod points

Re:Mod parent up...

[Mycroft_VIII]

Except it's way off. The founders didn't want a standing army and it was an amendment to the constitution that allowed most of the feds taxing of individuals about a century ago IIRC.

Mycroft

Come on, unfair assesment

[SuperKendall]

The Knick Arm bridge is seen as a shot in the arm for local developers and construction critters. Remember, pretty much the only economic engines in Alaska are Oil and Government. Nothing else but a bunch of trees, rocks and the occasional brown bear.

While it's true the bridge is seen as a boon to local development, Alaska has a lot more going for it economically - specifically tourism. They tax the hell out of cruise ships and also get a huge number of vistors every year in the coastal towns.

That's why Alaska does not need this bridge, and why I don't think it would be as big of a deal as some people think if it was lost to them. There simply is no excuse for using the whole of the US Treasury to pay for this bridge, if they feel the need is so tremendous raise taxes on the cruise industry yet again.

I, for one...

[anti-human 1]

Don't think our politicians should make a living off of being politicians. If they weren't so inclined to stay in office and keep their job, then maybe they would do some real work, solve some real issues, and listen to real people, instead of just their financial backers.

If Alaska keeps this guy another term, I'll be writing my congresspeople asking them to introduce a bill to give Alaska to Canada.... ...Fuckers.

Re:I, for one...

[Scudsucker]

Don't think our politicians should make a living off of being politicians. If they weren't so inclined to stay in office and keep their job, then maybe they would do some real work, solve some real issues, and listen to real people, instead of just their financial backers.

Wishful thinking. If a politician knows he can't stay in office, he'll start looking for his next job. And what's going to get him a better job: serving the voters who elected him, or cozying up to big money special interests?

Re:I, for one...

[anti-human 1]

Two words: New Constitution.

This, however, isn't the most appropriate forum. Don't get me wrong, I know congress sets their own salaries, and that if the task of providing the federal government with funds is handed to the states then nothing gets paid. We need -very- strict limits on what influence corporations have over government policy. I feel that our current framework of government and law isn't sufficiently precise for the nuances of today's society. I think the Great Depression era would have been the best time for some serious introspection into the existing government.

For the record, I don't feel that just anytime is a good time to build a new America. Certainly not now. Frankly, we might be screwed. We'll have to see how the 'war on terror' works out, and what kind of resolution the world sees for the international holy war clusterfuck that's going on.

ugh, work got busy.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[SanityInAnarchy]

I have never known a man who didn't make similar comments about his wife.

I have also never known a man who has lost his wife and didn't grieve.

Scumbag Stevens is also behind the 1996 Telco Act

[mabu]

In addition to the other dubious honors, it hasn't been mentioned that Ted Stephens was a principal architect of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which paved the way for the insane consolidation of news, network, print and radio communication companies. The eradication of the Fairness Doctrine and the 1996 Telco Act are to blame for the sorry state of affairs with mainstream media right now, and why things will not get any better until those two laws are corrected.

Cyberia

[Doc Ruby]

Alaska, home of oil, Republicans, Internet hatred, the biggest snow jobs in the country. Maybe we could send all these Republicans there for freezedrying.

OP is a plagiarist

[Anonymous Coward]

Lousy karma-whore.

Link to article shamelessly cut-n-pasted from

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001440.php

Re:He's also Mr Broadcast Flag, and Mr Web Censors

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with compulsory labeling of adult sites? That will make it even easier to find porn on the 'net! I mean, it's so difficult now to find porn...

bridge to nowhere

[kjoh001]

The idea of building a major bridge in the middle of nowhere is not new, but the name may well be taken by a bridge built in New Zealand in 1936, an isolated monument to pork barrel politics.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/Historic/020~B y-Region/007~Wanganui/pdf/bridge-to-nowhere-factsh eet.pdf

well played internet person

[Anonymous Coward]

but I, the secret holder of bills, have logged you in my super-secret pork-funded database and will bring the full force of my evil upon your household. cower in fear until your retribution is fullfilled! Stevens away! errr, I mean...HEY! look over there! its a terrorist!

This already exists

[ieeye]

http://vsearch1.fbo.gov/servlet/SearchServlet It's already available, why are they trying to re-legislate something that already exists?

Re:This already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... sorry... not the same thing... didn't even see dollar amounts attached to these solicitations. I don't think no-bid contracts make it there either. Try again, friend.

That's why Federal taxes ought to be capped.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of sending money thru a middle man?

Seems like it ought to be a good idea to cap what the Federal tax take to what Federal needs are.

Let each State raise their own taxes as much as they think they need.

Examples:

Army - Federal.
Education - Local.

Etc. Read the constitution for the complete list of what the Federal government is responsible for. The rest is politics.

Re:He's also Mr Broadcast Flag, and Mr Web Censors

[808140]

Because mandatory labeling will make it easy for companies and others to block porn sites, which porn sites do not want. We care about what porn sites want because internet companies are not beholden to any particular physical location to do business -- a porn site based in Russia reaches American consumers just as effectively as a porn site based in the US. The long term effect of porn site registration is that the big, profitable porn sites simply move their base of operations to another country -- there's already strong incentive to do this, as Americans are fairly trigger happy when it comes to pornography (is that 30 year old in pig tails really over 18? Maybe we should take you to court and find out) and smaller pornsites (with narrower profit margins) will be forced to label themselves, see their business die due to the ensuing blocks, and ultimately go out of business.

The reason we should care about this is because the porn industry is an extremely profitable industry. It employs many Americans and pays an awfully large amount of corporate tax thanks to its profitability. If labeling had the desired effect -- ease of censorship -- it would quickly become financially viable to simply move operations elsewhere to avoid the situation. This would be bad for the American economy. Let's face it, porn on the internet isn't going anywhere -- all this sort of thing does is hurts Americans, it doesn't help stop porn (because, after all, all those Russian porn sites with real lolitas aren't going to be affected by this labeling scheme.)

End result: foreign porn prospers, American porn dies, Americans lose jobs, government loses taxes, and ends up raising income taxes to compensate (or sells more debt to the Chinese, which is probably not good either.)

And our ability to find porn is not improved -- because a) finding porn is already easy now and b) what's to stop a morally minded ISP owner from blocking labeled porn sites router-level?

All in all, a stupid idea. Just like the .xxx domain was (is this the same idea?)

Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[Myself]

I've been tossing around the idea that, one month every year, legislators should work on repealing stupid old laws. It'd make great press, and it might encourage public debate about progressive versus traditional values.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[Nefarious Wheel]

I've been tossing around the idea that, one month every year, legislators should work on repealing stupid old laws

Another R.A.Heinlein idea independently arrived, heh .. his idea was to form a third house of Congress whose job was simply to repeal laws.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[Agripa]

Since there is no upper bound on the complexity of existing law, create one by adding an ammendment specifying that all federal laws expire after a certain amount of time. Nothing would preclude congress from passing them again but this would create pressure to work on what they believe is truely important.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I realize this post may borderline trolling, however it isn't meant to be serious in any way, shape, or form.

Among other thoughts, I've been tossing around the idea that once per year, say sometime in the second half of April, all Americans would get a paper ballot where they can nominate a congress person they think is a complete and utter failure. After all ballots have been counted, the congress people with the most nominations for being complete failures are taken and thrown into a wood chipper (or meat grinder) on Pay-Per-View. The proceeds would, by law, be used to pay off the national debt.

Of course, something like that would be nothing more than a repeat of the French Reign of Terror, and it contibutes nothing to civilized society or democracy.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[AGMW]

Third House

I like it. You could save a bunch of money by always putting the runners up in the voting into the 3rd House too, and they'd have a ball removing the stupid legislation.

In the UK I've become so disallusioned by the whole political process that I'm thinking about what Groucho Marx once said about some club that asked him to join. He said something about not wanting to be a member of any club that would accept him as a member. Turn that around a bit and smear politics all over it's shoes and you get ...

The desire to be a politician should preclude you from becoming one.

I reckon you could have system a bit like Jury Service, where you get approached to become a politician for some time period. The backroom boys (Civil Servants) who, as far as I'm aware, are mostly the same regardless of the Government will provide continuity and the necessary knowledge and skills and the Parilament Service chaps and chappesses can use common sense to decide policy without having to worry about elections. You could set up some selection committee that decided upon a set of conditions.
The people should be of a certain age - say over 30 - so they have some real world experience and not just the idologies of youth.
The people should probably have at least "average" intelligence. How do we test that? I don't know, but a simple IQ test would be a start.
They should be "workers" rather than "shirkers", so pick people who have jobs (or who had jobs if they are retired)

So many stupid things are done, and so much money wasted, as part of the whole election process that it saddens me when the UK Public fall for it time after time. We are paying these jokers to try and fool us into voting for them!

On top of that, we pay nearly half the people in parliament to make life difficult for the other half. If you are setting up the Cabinet (the people who run the various offices within the Gov) how come all the "best people" are in the same party? They should pick the best people regardless of party.

They voted themselves index linked pensions - I reckon that the wages/salaries for Politicians should be linked (eg twice, 2.5 times, etc) to the national average, so if they want a pay rise they should do things to try and make the average salary better, and not just vote themselves more money!

I would like to see the "cost of government" figure published every year. How much have we been paying for these jokers to spy on us each year. Compare this Gov with the previous one - are we really getting value for money when the Labour Gov has 3 times the No of "advisors" than the last Gov (and not holding them up as a great example!). These same advisors who wait until there's BIG NEWS DAYS to release painful information in the hope that no one will notice.

I just can't see how we can ever trust the Gov to not try and screw us over. Rather than trying to run the country for us, they just seem hell bent on staying in power for as long as possible.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[MindStalker]

I reckon you could have system a bit like Jury Service......

Well as it seems that politicians staff members do most of the work of crafting bills, and informing the politician of what each bill means. We could have staffers picked by intelligence then via a lottery system. Meaning the government picks randomly people who are intelligent enough to understand law (maybe a law degree might help, but I don't trust most lawyers :) and hard working and offers them the job of congressional staffers.
Then you have a lottery system that picks people intelligent people who have good social skills and makes them congresspeople. They are will be required to have regular town hall meetings with the district they are intended to represent. This district also has the power to vote to remove them at anytime (maybe a 2/3 or 3/4 vote). So you would end up with a person who truly represents the will of the people who they represent as was originally intended. Best of all with modern communications these people could stay and would be encouraged to stay in their home town and so their congressional duties virtually.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[MindStalker]

-1 grammer

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[bh213]

I belive Jury duty like idea for president selection was once mentioned by Arhur C. Clarke. The problem is the criteria. Random selection would probably end up being much worse than current system.

BTW: A. Clarke had the president selected by AI...

As for politicians getting some part of average pay, I belive the problem would be short-term planning. They would probably lower taxes, cancel all long term stuff (research, social security, infrastructure maintainance etc.) to increase their wages.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[smchris]

Far from a pleasantly wacko suggestion, I think this is the most crucial issue of our time. Even if the Neocon regime could be crowbarred out of power, what are the chances that the Democrats would methodically roll back the precedents of the Bush Regime to restore our rights guaranteed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Sadly, I'm thinking, "very slim". Lawless power unleashed is too tempting to put back in the bottle. Welcome to the Empire -- and freedom and human rights don't mix with empire.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[AGMW]

They would probably lower taxes, cancel all long term stuff (research, social security, infrastructure maintainance etc.) to increase their wages.

... Then they are unsuitable for the role! The idea behind making their salary be based on some (fixed!) multiple of the average wage is to STOP them voting themselves more money, or better pensions, etc. The concept of the people with their noses in the trough being able to decide on how full (and deep!) the trough is is the problem.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm usually against amending the Constitution, but I'd like to see one (or at the very least, a law) that states that any law automatically expires after ten years (except the law that says laws expire after ten years). Some laws, like laws against murder, would be easy to reintroduce and pass while other, more controversial laws would have to be re-argued.

When everything is against the law, there is no law; you then have anarchy. Anarchy leads to monarchy.

The US has more prisoners per capita than any other nation. Why doesn't this alarm everyone?

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[D3]

The desire to be a politician should preclude you from becoming one.


This was first brought up by Plato/Socrates c.470-347 BC. The most suitable candidates were the ones who didn't want the job (and associated power) in the first place as they would be the least corruptible and most likely to do a good job.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 spelling
grammar

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a chance. The more laws, the more revenue and power necessary to implement them all, and the more benefit to those who control the law.

Long, long ago, a president would walk out of the white house, alone, take a stroll down the street, talk to anyone that approached him, get a sandwich and beer at the local pub. Today, the president doesn't go anywhere without an army of bodyguards, bullet-proof limos, chauffers, make-up artists, advisors, food testers -- all paid for by you and me. If the presidents of today are not full-on emporers, living well above the law and the common man, then what exactly are they?

There is a reason for that.

Government benefits the power elite, and that is exactly why governments expand in power throughout their lifetimes, not the other way around. No government in the history of organized coercion has ever significantly and permanently reduced its powers through the process of democracy, as far as I am aware.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[bechthros]

I think all laws should have expiration dates of no more than ten years. It's the one part of the patriot act they got right. ALL laws. Federal, state, and other. Yes, even the law against murder.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[$1uck]

I think all laws should come into effect with an expiration date that is proportional to the vote. (maybe elections should be run the same way). Someone squeaks by an election they get the shortest term possible. They have an overwhelming majority let their term lasts longer.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[FuzzyDaddy]

I guess a 'grammer' would be someone who only ways a gram...

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[ChrisLeif]

http://www.dumblaws.com/> For a sterling set of examples of laws to repeal. This will leave you shaking your head.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[HeroreV]

The people who make the laws should be the ones that have to review all existing laws so that they are encouraged to keep the law system lean and simple. If the lawmakers don't have to ever review anything one it's made, they have little incentive to do that, and they actually are instead just encouraged to add more crappy with less forethought faster than ever since there's now a group of people that are supposed to get rid of it if it sucks.

I would really love if Congress had to review every line of each law every few years. The laws would probably be easier to read and there wouldn't be nearly as many. Plus it would slow down congress, which is almost always a good thing since the US government is continuing to grow larger and larger.

NCTA = Phone Cos. = Stevens' Backrub service

[Bushido Hacks]

The NCTA sent out a message this evening stating that Net Neutraility is "bad for consumers". They expect us to believe that Google and Yahoo are the bad guys. That Silicon Valley is home to "multimillion dollar internet companies". How about a REALITY CHECK. Here's all the information from the NCTA that is demonizing Google.

What does "network neutrality" mean?
That answer is difficult because each stakeholder assigns it a different meaning. Cable's viewpoint is that network neutrality means that consumers should be allowed to access any lawful content, application or services available over the public Internet as well as attach devices that do not cause harm to the network.

This coming from an industry that calls computer hacking a crime, but does not mind if the people at Comcast or Adelphia abandon their customers or when Time Warner Cable blocks out TV networks distributed by Disney. If it were up to me, I would let the people in Silicon Valley be in charge of the Internet, because they actually know how the internet works.

The NCTA does not want Net Neutrality, not because they want to abondon their customers, it is because they don't want to maintain or upgrade their equipment. They are in the business of cutting costs at the consumer level while the men in the smoke filled rooms make a profit. The Cable Industry had me on their side when they were opposed to the phone companies monopolizing competition. Now they have become the phone companies. They are now sending messages to their customers telling them that customers will lose service if they do not oppose net neutrality. What are they going to do next? Tell us to vote Republican or we loose HBO?

AT&T is already cutting back services on DSL customers while their security is compromized. Yet, immediately following the news story about how 19,000 IDs were compromized on the AM radio, there is a commerical for AT&T promoting an offer!

The NCTA, the major Telecoms, and Mr. Stevens do not know the the consequences of their actions. They don't listen to Boole, Babbage, or Tesla, they listen to Washing, Lincoln, Hamlton, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin.

It is this ideology that only capitalism should be the deciding factor of any technological or scientific decision that will create significant anarchy if Net Neutrality is disregaurded.

After all these year, the facade that "Cable Cares" or "Cable is a community leader that does good things" has just eroded!

Contact the National Cable & Telecommunications Association at (202) 775-3550 and tell them that threatening us with bad service is no way to run an industry.

Then give Senator Ted Stevens a call (202) 224-3004

OT

[rice_burners_suck]

I know this is a bit "off topic", but where does the saying "Smoke filled room" come from? I keep hearing it all the time, and what does the smoke symbolize? (Blame it on my English as a 2nd language, if you wish.)

Re:OT

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

I thought it had something to do with the phrase "smoke and mirrors" which refers to a magician's attempt to hide the secret of his tricks. Apparently not, says Wikipedia:

A smoke-filled room is a term used in the United States to describe a gathering of minds secluded from the general public, often insinuating that the majority of people in the room is comprised of old, white males smoking cigars.

Thanks for asking, I learned something today.

Re:OT

[orcrist]

I know this is a bit "off topic", but where does the saying "Smoke filled room" come from? I keep hearing it all the time, and what does the smoke symbolize? (Blame it on my English as a 2nd language, if you wish.)

It refers to the traditional image of "those in power" being old (white) men smoking cigars around a table in a small room as they make their plans, or divvy up the world, or whatever.

-chris

Boomerang time.

[Chibi Merrow]

The Judicial branch is freed from that nuisance and can focus on doing what the Constitution mandates, not what the people consider fashionable.

Or they can do whatever they feel like because, really, who's going to stop them?

Keep in mind that without the Judicial branch, we'd still have segregated schools.

Keep in mind that without the Judicial Branch we wouldn't have had a Federal rubber stamp on the practice of segregated schools for about 80 years.

Things like "legislating from the bench" are exactly what allow the Constitutionally "right" thing to overrule the popular thing.

Dredd Scott

Plessy vs. Ferguson

That's my definition of "legislating from the bench". "Legislating from the bench" is by definition not "constitutionally right", as if you could find it in the Constitution you wouldn't have to make it up by "legislating from the bench" in the first place. "Legislating from the bench" gives us "slaves as property", "seperate but equal", and "tax revenue == public good" (ala Kelo).

I think you need to check yourself on this.

Re:Boomerang time.

[crawling_chaos]

That's my definition of "legislating from the bench".

I'm not sure your definition is at all helpful, as it appears your definition of "legislating from the bench" is "the court making decisions I personally do not agree with." I happen to agree with you that the decisions you cite were particularly egregious (Dredd in particular), but you are going to need a more impartial definition of your phrase if it is to be applied evenly. As an example, a Gore voter would likely see Bush v. Gore as "legislating from the bench" (the Constitution says States determine how electors are picked, not SCOTUS) whereas a Bush voter might not. Similarly with Roe, Kelo, etc.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll be five days before he gets that internet.

Why trust Congress to do it?

[kbielefe]

I've been wanting to do a similar database for a while, but just don't have the time. Trusting Congress to make a porkbuster database is like trusting oil companies with alternative energy research: they're the worst people for the job, but everyone inexplicably is sitting around waiting for them to do it.

Every member of Congress is against pork on camera, but you might be surprised at how much support there is for pork on the house and senate floors. The congressman from my district, Jeff Flake, has been waging a futile war on pork the last couple of years. (So have a few others, but Flake is who I am familiar with.) That makes it a little easier to find votes on pork spending.

On thomas.loc.gov, look up any appropriations bill this year (try H.R. 5384), click on the amendments link, and search for "Flake." Sorry, thomas.loc.gov has a weird cache system that doesn't allow direct links.

What you'll find is that nearly all of the dozens of Flake amendments on appropriations bills this year have been anti-pork. However, I am not aware of a single one that has passed. What may be even more surprising is the margins by which his amendments fail. At best, he gets about 20% of the vote.

So, stop complaining about an obscure senator from Alaska. Find out what pork your own representative voted for, whether benefitting your state or not, and let him or her know that you don't appreciate it.

Re:Why trust Congress to do it?

[Ksisanth]

Sorry, thomas.loc.gov has a weird cache system that doesn't allow direct links.

Direct Links To Thomas Documents :-)

Re:Why trust Congress to do it?

[kbielefe]

Thanks. I've been using Thomas for years and am now thoroughly embarrased that I never tried to figure that out.

I still can't figure out how to get to the amendments, but here is a link to the appropriations bill I was using as an example.

Prohibition of a federal army

[JimBobJoe]

No money means no central military, which means no defense (state militias cannot compare to a central military, there just is not enough cohesion), which means, eventually, no country

The US Constitution has a prohibition on funding an army for more than two years. ("Congress may tax...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;" Article 1, Section 8.)

The Founders had no intention of there being a permanent central military, and indeed, there really wasn't one until the latter part of the 19th century (how they get around what is clearly a pretty clear prohibition is a bit mysterious to me.) Our system of national defense was always supposed to be through the independent state militians (however, that same section does allow for Congress to set up the rules for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" which implies a way of standardizing them for the time when they need to be combined into a federal army.)

A navy, on the other hand, was permitted to be permanent.

Re:Prohibition of a federal army

[Anonymous Coward]

The Founders had no intention of there being a permanent central military, and indeed, there really wasn't one until the latter part of the 19th century (how they get around what is clearly a pretty clear prohibition is a bit mysterious to me.) Our system of national defense was always supposed to be through the independent state militians (however, that same section does allow for Congress to set up the rules for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" which implies a way of standardizing them for the time when they need to be combined into a federal army.)

The militia system the founders advocated also had forced enlistment requirements, so it was not completely in keeping with the ideals of individual freedom.
Both standing armies and local militia systems have problems. The Newburgh Conspiracy was a warning of the difficulty of keeping centralized military power in check, which probably was why the founders leaned towards militias. They had the ideal of local militias under central control. Sufficient centralized control over local militias is in practice no different than a standing army, insufficient control results in local militias with local loyalty which results in incidents like Shay's Rebellion under the Articles of Confederation.

The compromise when reestablishing government under the Contitution was the 2nd amendment to give citizens the ability to check the power of the army and 2 year appropriation limit, which coincides with the terms of house representatives. The limit prevents government from appropriating funds to the army for longer than the citizens' check on Congressional power (the body responsible for declaring war).

Re:Prohibition of a federal army

[Guppy06]

"The US Constitution has a prohibition on funding an army for more than two years."

Solution: budget the Army (and everything else) annually.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

You know bloggers hold leverage when the scoreboard says Bloggers 0, Smoke-Filled Room -2147483648.

Massive Rant Incoming

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm from Alaska. We don't have a lot of respect for the rest of the country for one good reason---they try to run our state from DC and they have no idea what it is really like.

Ted stevens is an idiot, but a lot of the complaints against him are even dumber. First of all, the complaint against the "bridge to nowhere"...

1. Pork

First of all, the "bridge to nowhere" that everyone is quick to mention.

The bridge was NOT pork, it needs to be built, and it was something that should have been built in the 60's or 70's. I don't think you people on the east coast where they have smoothed out entire valleys to build highways, have huge billion dollar tunnels (big dig anyone?), huge cities of pavement, excellent highways that lead for thousands of miles, understand Alaska.

Southeast Alaska doesn't have a road system. You cannot drive between towns. You'd love paying $100 to travel to the next town over, wouldn't you? Oh wait, 99.9% of you couldn't possibly even grasp that concept. OMG, you can't even ship something FedEx ground? $100 shipping for something basic because that is all that is available? And you are in the state capital!!! No, you wouldn't understand. The lower 48 got a road system developed half a century ago. Alaska doesn't have one. Alcan highway is all that there is. Most of you would be appalled at how bad that road is. It's like a city street, not like a freeway. And it doesn't touch most of Southeast.

Ketchican is a small city of about 15k people. The *international airport* is on an island accross from town. There is almost NO MORE ROOM to expand Ketchican itself, yet the city has a good economy based on fishing and tourism with plenty of room for growth. The tech sector is also alive and well in southeast alaska in small towns. Not like a big city down south, but WORLDS above what a town of 15k people would have in the lower 48.

The area for expansion in Ketchican is the island the airport is on. There is plenty of land that could be built on, plenty of places for new Ketchican residence to build homes, start business, etc. Yet of course...There is no bridge to get there and no one wants to take a ferry back and forth every day, especially in Ketchican weather. The bridge should have been built a LONG time ago. It is not pork.

Was the golden gate bridge pork? Of course not. Could those people have been served by a ferry??? Uhm...I guess... but would the ensuing economic development have occured? Of course not.

All of you in the lower 48 whining that alaskans want to be able to drive to their airport, why don't you look at what your state got in the 50's and 60's infrastructure wise. Alaska never got that period. We have never gone through that period of growth. And for the most part *we like it*. However, there are some things that just don't make sense.

PORK is the government paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to paint an Alaska Airlines jet like a salmon. That is pork. Pork is our (fucking high-horse who feels entitled to everything) governor trying to force the state to buy him a private jet for use by his office. He complained that his plane was inadequate compared to most of the other governors who have private jets. Fortunately, he's already lost the republican primary.

Now, Ted Stevens is a champion of pork, and this is bad for us all. However, we are afraid to get rid of him, because if we voted in someone new then Alaska would have absolutely no voice whatsoever and would get screwed on everything. See the position we are in? We can't win either way with the current system. States need more atonomy over our own business. If we had more authority we wouldnt need the fed's money. Too bad the feds are restricting oil development, killing (it's pretty much dead now) logging, and hurting the fishing industry by ignoring the environmental consequences of fish farms. If it werent for the federal government we'd have a lot better economy. The only reason AK votes republican is

Re:Massive Rant Incoming

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at what other Alaskan's have said about the bridge, you sir, are full of shit. The ferry was faster and cheaper. You can buy a whole lotta fucking ferry rides for $223 mil.

On ANWR: tough shit, buddy. Some things are not worth selling out for petty cash. ANWR is one of them. Deal with it.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[Scaba]

Maybe someone was drilling his wife, and maybe that plane didn't crash by accident...

Re:He's also Mr Broadcast Flag, and Mr Web Censors

[Alderin1]

Mandatorilly labelled porn, leads to sensored porn, leads to more porn being illegal, leads to both more outsourcing AND more organized crime. Remember prohibition? People wouldn't stop drinking, the Mob was born out of the illegal profits. People will never stop looking at porn on the Internet, what will be born of this 'prohibition'? I don't want to find out.

Best said...

[Z34107]

Alexis de Tocqueville said it best, at the time of Our Great Country's inception:

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.

Re:Best said...

[moeinvt]

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Good one.

Bribing the people with their children's money seems to work as well.

Does Stevens have something to hide?

[Wolfier]

Instead of relying on the bill to find it out, the bloggers should probably do their own investigations and post the results :)

It seems pretty obvious to me how they do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Congress may tax...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;" Article 1, Section 8.

The limit is on the term of appropriations. So if Congress passes a new appropriation of money for the Army every two years, they're golden.

Re:It seems pretty obvious to me how they do it...

[nlmille1]

Right, and every two years 1/3 of the Senate and the entire House of Reps comes up for re-election. The framers of the constitution didn't want to empower the legislature to appropriate funds for a length of time that might outlast those members elected terms.

Re: Good news / bad news.

[McNally]

You're talking about spending $233,000,000 in federeal funds to build a bridge to serve a community of 7,500 people. That's roughly $30,000 per resident.

I've got good news and bad news on your numbers. The good news is that the bridge will serve almost twice as many people as your number suggests. The bad news is that the estimated cost of the bridge, according to the article today in the Ketchikan Daily News, is now $328,000,000.

How do you justify that, especially when there's a perfectly serviceable ferry that's been in operation for ages?

Beats me. I live here in the community where it's going to be built and I think it's a shameful example of the worst kind of government waste.

Polite????

[gettingbraver]

One of my do-nothing Senators is up for re-election this year! I'm going to call her and raise hell about this crap!!

Get Calatrava to redesign it

[Overzeetop]

and it could easily top $3B. Don't sell yourselves short - remember, it's not your money you're spending! After all, he mangaged to make the $3M Sundial footbridge into a $23.5M masterpiece!

(Who is Santiago Calatrava?)

Re:He's also Mr Broadcast Flag, and Mr Web Censors

[GnuTzu]

yeah, right.

Seriously, the point is that we can't regulate sites in other countries without a National firewall. Aside from the damage that would do to the Internet, we really don't need an bureaucracy of national censors.

Golden Pork Bridge

[filmnorthflorida]

"Was the golden gate bridge pork? Of course not. Could those people have been served by a ferry??? Uhm...I guess... but would the ensuing economic development have occured? Of course not."

The golden gate bridge was pork, and still is. It connects a national park to another national park, along a route served by several ferries (now subsidized by bridge tolls, of all things, but previous to the bridge profitable and less expensive). If it produced a great boom of economic development, I expect there would be stuff on at least one end of the bridge, rather than a (fun to explore) former military base and some (really very pretty) woods.

on the other hand, it was at least *local* pork - paid for by the residents of the surrounding counties, in a local bond issue. here are details on the wildly inaccurate campaign for the bond measure, courtesy of the city of san francisco.

Representative Politics

[ppp]

Alaskins... PLEASE tell me you are doing something about this guy.

Why should they? He brings federal money into the state, and into their pockets. Are you suggesting that they should put the greater good of their fellow man over their own self interest? From the viewpoint of modern American culture, do you realize how completely alien that concept is?.George Carlin has the right take on this: our politicians really do accurately represent the public, and Garbage In = Garbage Out.

Couple ways

[snowwrestler]

- The Senator can be convinced to remove the block. Either their demands are met, their concerns are addressed, or they are traded for something in another bill (e.g. take your block off the tax bill and I'll give you a research center in the NASA bill). This usually involves a compromise of some kind. All too often it involves an increase rather than a decrease in pork though.

- The block can be rolled by the Senate leadership. This does not happen often because it creates bad feelings and increases animosity, which makes it harder to get things done. But occasionally the leadership can either lean on a Senator to remove the block for political reasons, or the Senate leadership just ignores it--basically calling the bluff and daring the Senator to filibuster. Filibusters can be overcome with a vote of 60 anyway, and often the reason a block is used in the first place is that it's not an issue the Senator wishes to publicly communicate on (a filibuster is a matter of public record, a block is not). This gets tied up in issues of power, seniority, committee leadership, party leadership etc. No one wants to piss off someone who can hurt them back later.

Re:He's also Mr Broadcast Flag, and Mr Web Censors

[cherokee158]

Ah, the dreaded slippery slope argument in reverse. But I think your fears are unfounded: the only people who will block porn are those who are not likely to invest in it, anyway. And the flag could also work in reverse: to enable those seeking porn to locate it more easily. That, to me, looks like a solution designed to improve targeted traffic. How would that cost the industry money?

No

[Irvu]

While some may claim Alaska has no taxes that isn't the case. It has less taxes than say Massachuisetees but it also has a higher cost of living and lower income than other states.

With respect to the money being "given away" it isn't quite that simple either. The Alaska Permanent Fund takes in state taxes from oil production (Alaska, unlike Louisiana can and does tax oil production). That money is rolled into a large bank account and some but not all of the interest of that money is spent both on state government and on giving back to the population. By this mechanism the state translates consumable wealth (Oil) into long-term capital (investments).

While it may be easy to whine about Pork in Alaska lets consider the alternative, no government spending anywhere that is "local". By this definition no money would be spent on Universities because that benefits only the local university. Similarly no money would be spent on NASA because why should Florida Colorado and Texas have all the fun? The trans-Alaska oil pipeline which supplies most of the U.S.'s domestic crude, gone becuase it is only in Alaska. The same goes for all military bases (tax benefits to local states) and federal grants to public schools (why give a damn about kids in other towns?)

Any Federal project could be criticized as spending money in one place and not others. While Ted Stevens is a master of Pork he is hardly the worst player, only the most prominent one now. Brining home the bacon is what most politicians do and how they get elected. So before you turn to blame Alaska for your problems I'd ask just how much you like the federally funded roads you drive down and the DHS security being provided for your ballgames.

Federal tax dollars are used as pork because the day to day things aren't what most voters notice. What they notice, and what makes them like a given politician, are the big named projects that appear with his fingerprints on them.

Re:No

[Copid]

What they notice, and what makes them like a given politician, are the big named projects that appear with his fingerprints on them.

But when those projects are bridges to nowhere, is that really a good thing? I'm all for federal spending on infrastructure that benefits a state as long as it has some arguable national benefit (and most of things you mentioned do), but racking up the dollars on random wasteful stuff doesn't strike me as particularly good behavior.

Re:No

[Irvu]

A genuine bride to nowhere (except as a piece of aburdist art) would be a waste of time. The question one has to ask though is what is "really" wasteful and what isn't. Unfortunately it is true that one man's pork is another man's livelyhood.

Take the railroads and then the interstate highway systems. Both required plenty of roads and bridges to "nowhere" At the time the railroads were made and the highways many of the places that are now booming in the east and west were small or even nonexistent. Talk about bridges to nowhere.

The catch is that in the game of politics it often devolves to what souds good on TV. "Bridge to Nowhere" has a nice ring. That doesn't mean it is in fact going nowhere. I question the need for that particular bridge but I am leery of declaring that it has no purpose at all.

I am very opposed to poster like the parent who seem to have a really shallow view of the whole thing. That just devolves to the "If I don't see a direct benefit then it's waste" philosophy. That short sighted pholosophy leads to problems not solutions and a government that does not invest in anything long-term because someone always calls it pork.

Few people saw a direct benefit of landing on the moon but as a society (possibly a species) we have. Similarly people without kids don't often see a direct benefit from public education but by having an educated society we can have a viable democracy (or at least try).

Re:No

[Copid]

I tend to think of things more as an economist would. No, the bridge certainly wasn't to "nowhere." People would use the bridge. There's no question about that. My question is what the opportunity cost is. What would an otherwise healthy, functioning market economy have spent that $300M on, and what would the yield on those monies be? Government intervention can sometimes do a good job of creating better long economic outcomes than a short-sighted market alone, but it tends not to be the case, and given the history of Senator Stevens and the particulars of this bridge, I have a very hard time believing that this is one of those cases (or even believe that the Senator has been a serious part of any such decisions at all).

Think of it this way: our economy has a long history of healthy GDP growth and a good return on dollars invested by itself. There's no compellingly obvious reason to think that an investment of $300M on a bridge in Alaska is going to have anywhere near that type of return in the short run or the long run, and the Senator hasn't done a particularly good job of coming up with one. That there is some (a lot of?) local benefit to the bridge, I don't even think that the local interest is that high, given that the locals haven't expressed any interest in spending their money on the project, so it's hard to believe that it's going to generate a lot of local wealth that will come pouring out into neighboring states. It's much easier to chalk this one up to bringing home the bacon than it is to think of it as responsible governance.

Senority

[Dareth]

You are forgetting commitee membership/chairmanship for "senior" members of Congress.
If your congressman is getting you a share of all that pork, you may not want to vote someone else in who cannot.

Remember that this is a zero-sum game. Someone will get the money if your congressman does not.

Not just Stevens...

[wezelboy]

It has also come out that Robert Byrd (D-WV) had a hold on the bill.

He has since removed his hold, so now the only obstacle is Stevens.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Ted Stevens may just be America's largest douchebag, but he wasn't alone on this one... Did anyone notice that West Virgnia Democrat Robert Byrd also had a hold on the bill? Byrd's reasoning went, "Senators should read and debate bills before they vote on them."

New topic: Alaskans have repeatedly voted to put Ted Stevens in the Senate. Can America survive if we cut Alaska loose? We know Alaska can survive; they've got plenty of oil.

Bingo!

[ColdWetDog]

Yep. Now the legislature and the ex-Senator now Governator Murkowski are trying to "fix" that problem with the new gas pipeline complete with a sliding scale for taxing purposes. The oil companies are having hissy fits and hitting up the populace with full color ads in the newspapers saying that they SUCH nice people and think of everyone (and the kittens) when it comes to divvying up the spoils and to please tell your state legislator that Big Oil needs Big Money.

Actually, Alaska was looking at a windfall year in oil tax profits until British Petroleum "had" to shut down one of the feeder lines because of some problems. Since they were making money hand over fist for the past two decades, they couldn't see to doing much in the way of preventative maintenence and woops - the pipeline got corroded.

Just last week everyone was gnashing teeth and rending garments because the money spigot stopped all of a sudden. Now of course, the problem "isn't as bad as they thought" and they can restart the pipeline soon. Ahhh...

Just grabbing everybody by the short and curlies for a bit to show just who's in charge.

You fail to remember:

[TeeDubya]

In the immortal words of Ted "Tubes" Stevens himself... "Democracy isn't just some open forum the people can vote in, It's a Series of Highly-Private and Constrictive TUBES!"

Start Smoking Site

[MoonDusk]

The most stupid site I found [url]http://www.beginnenmetroken.nl[/url] This idiotic site tries to make people start smoking, it's so dumb.

Miller Beer

[rebound2222]

Over 100 Organizations to Boycott Miller Brewing Company for their support of illegal immigration. EMBARGO: Till Tuesday, September 5 CONTACT: Jason Mrochek & William Gheen www.MillerBoycott.com media@millerboycott.com (866) 329-3999 A coalition of over 100 groups that support the enforcement of America's existing immigration laws, including charges against employers that hire, aid, and abet illegal aliens, has launched a national boycott of Miller Brewing Company and their parent company SABMiller plc. The boycott message is simple. Miller Brewing Company supports illegal immigration by giving money to groups that support amnesty, marches, and benefits for illegal aliens. Citizens are encouraged to "Dump the beer! Dump the stock!" A website containing boycott instructions, a petition, and documentation has been launched at www.MillerBoycott.com Citizens supporting the boycott are encourage to avoid Miller Brewing Company products such as Miller Lite, ICE House, Miller Genuine Draft, and Milwaukee's Best. Citizens are also encouraged to divest in the company's stock and any mutual funds containing their stock. Fliers, stickers, and e-mail forwards are also provided. "It is time for these large corporations that are using their financial influence to open America's borders to be punished!" said William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC). "It is time for the immigration enforcement movement to show these unscrupulous corporations what we can do when we all work together." The boycott is being arranged under the banner of the National Illegal Immigration Boycott Coalition which plans to organize over 100 groups behind the effort. Jason Mrochek of WeHireAliens.com and FIRE Coalition, and William Gheen of ALIPAC are heading up the effort. "Miller Brewing Company is giving money to groups that support amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens that have broken many of our laws." said Jason Mrochek of FIRE Coalition. "The last thing we need is more illegal aliens driving drunk and killing American citizens." Congressman Steve King's office reports that thirteen Americans are being killed by uninsured drunk driving illegal aliens every day as a consequence of America's unenforced immigration laws. Miller Brewing Company plans to increase profits by marketing their beer to the Hispanic markets that are growing rapidly due to illegal immigration. All members of the media and public that are concerned about corporate influences using their power to usurp the existing laws of America and the representation of the American public are encouraged to support the boycott and visit www.MillerBoycott.com www.WeHireAliens.com is the nation's largest online database of employers allegedly hiring illegal aliens where citizens can report employers that hire illegal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement through the site. ALIPAC is a national political action committee dedicated to securing America's borders and enforcement of existing immigration laws found online at www.alipac.us ### Paid for by AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION PAC Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966 Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 329-3999 FEC ID: C00405878

Sen. Byrd of WV

[kace]

This was a two man show as I heard it. Senator Byrd was equally involved in the 'secret hold'.

... I guess as a democrat he "did it for the children" and that makes it OK.