Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
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.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
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.
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.
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.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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.
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).
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
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.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
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.
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.
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.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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.
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.