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

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.

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: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

[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.