http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/18/earmarks/index.html I like this quote in particular about earmarks: "As long as we are not required to release them, we're not going to," said Dan Turner, an aide to Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Louisiana. This ain't a Dem versus Reep thing either... How is this even legal? Items to which Congress allocates money can remain essentially a secret?
National politics is a dead horse. Go local, take control on the local level, and thumb your nose at DC. They'll implode sooner or later...
Wasn't there a bill passed last year that created (or was going to create) a public database on this stuff?
Why would someone start a discussion with an ambiguous title and no commentary that clues a reader in to what it's about? If you don't care enough to explain yourself, why should I?
Just curious...why do you feel that way? Because you agree with grassroots local democracy, or b/c you want the corporate fascists to seize even more control?
This is really golden in light of the fact that this forum is the KING of ambiguous titles. My first post clearly says "about earmarks". I then did comment slightly on the brazenness of the aide. And then ASKED 2 questions. I'll make sure all of my threads go thru you first to make sure they fit your criteria. Your self-imposed role as "policeman of bigsoccer" is really really old. It's been old. So just neg-rep me and go the f**k away.
before you fight the culture of corruption, you have to know the culture of corruption, you must be the culture of corruption
I think without as much power in the federal government those fascist corporate nazi asshole dochebag baby rapists wouldn't have the power they have today. It's the comingling of political power and corporate power that is the issue, not corporations themselves. That and I am a big fan of federalism and I believe the national government has taken far more of the pie than the constitution authorizes.
I think that's debatable. Some states exercise a lot more lobbying oversight, corporate oversight, etc., than the feds.....some states exercise a lot less. There would just be a commingling of corporate power and more state political power instead of federal.
The big difference is that the federal government is one stop shopping as opposed to having to pay for lobbyists in 50 different states. That's a much easier environment for corporatism to exist. That and state legislators are far closer to their constituents than congressmen are so coorective action is easier to come by should businesses get out of hand.
This may be your most lucid post (or your only lucid post). The dems should be flayed over this. Is there no accountability? God knows we don't want the crazy-assed reeps running the show again...
True....but getting enough federal legislators to do your bidding is more akin to herding cats than it is with state legislators.....the interests are more disparate (although certainly there are disparate interests within a single state as well....just not as disparate in most cases). Hmmm.....closer in proximity, sure. Not sure about accountability. I'd be curious to see voting numbers for one's congressman versus for one's state representative. Although I'd agree that the logistics for mobilizing against the latter should they piss you off are easier....but I suspect a lot more of what the latter does flies under the radar more so than federal legislators.
Yeah, you're right, I was too cranky. Have some green rep. But it seems I've been seeing aLOT of threads lately that are impossible to even know what's going on unless I click on a link first.
From the article: Earlier this year, the House implemented rules changes that require greater disclosure of earmark requests, and the Senate passed a bill that would require lawmakers to post a list of their earmark requests on the Internet. The bill, however, has not passed the House. Initially the Senate bill was being anonymously blocked by two senators, but they were eventually exposed and relented when bloggers demanded that every member of the Senate admit if they were responsible for the block. Anyone care to guess which two senators we're talking about?
Excellent Horseshack! The Senate sweathogs holding up the bill were none other than the bi-partisan kings of pork, Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd.
Already done, but mine was a e-mail of gratitude since my Rep (Tom Price) was one of the few that responded to the CNN request.