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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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: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.

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...

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never been married, have you?

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: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: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: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.