you know what pisses me off about the US government

jlew24asu wrote:

all this earmark bullshit cant be something local residents/voters are pushing for??

People only call it wasteful spending when it happens in *other people's districts.* But they're delighted to have the federal government shell out $300,000 for new fire engines in their *own district* of Middle-of-Nowhere Illinois (to protect them from terrorists).

(This is not knocking Middle-of-Nowhere Illinois; I love it here. But a couple of elections ago, I did not vote for a local candidate for coroner who said that his main goal was to dun the Department of Homeland Security for money for a new morgue. Sure, we need a morgue, but that's a local responsibility. I thought that Homeland Security money was for fighting terrorism. Just because there's a federal tit doesn't mean we all have to congregate around it. But all my friends made fun of me for it.)

I'm a Tax and Spend Liberal who favors an expansive federal government and thought that the New Deal was brilliant. But even I recognize that it has to end somewhere -- like fire trucks and morgues in the middle of nowhere.

But stopping it really requires stopping the powers of incumbency. But it'll be hard for Congress to give up powers that they enjoy.

By the way, it is true that Bush wants to do away with the earmarks, but they emerged in force during a Republican-dominated Congress. I don't think this is a partisan issue, really. I think this is a struggle between the Executive and Congress. The President -- whoever it is -- wants to control the budget, and members of Congress -- regardless of party -- want to bring home the bacon. Inconsistent goals, to say the least.

But it also raises questions about what wasteful spending is.

It would be helpful if we could see the statistics behind all the earmarking bills that are being passed. In other words, how many of them are being pushed for specific lobbyists in the Congressman's or Rep's home state, versus being pushed by the actual PEOPLE in the state?

If, say, a NY Rep like Congresswoman Nita Lowey or whatever her name is, pushes certain funding for a highway program in her area, she should have to give specific numbers as to how many people in her area really want funding to go to the highways, versus how many contractors have asked her to push for the funding.

jlew24asu wrote:

the amount of fucking wasteful spending of taxpayer money. I know I know, everyone is going to reply with the "wasteful" spending on Iraq. defense spending, excluded, we waste BILLIONS.

for example. in wake of the MN bridge collapse, its said that some 70,000 bridges need repair in this country. I was watching a press conference when bush said he would not raise taxes to pay for it but ask congress to reallocate current spending and ask them to reconsider what we spend money on. I agree. (again I am talking about domestic things). for example, 40 million was spent on some stupid project to find out how to increase foot traffic on walking paths in minnesota. the list goes on and on.

what is that report that comes out every year? the pig report or something? can anything really be done about the shameful spending by congress?

This is an excellent reason to vote for Kucinich in 2008. Easily the most fiscally responsible candidate out there. Easily.

For the US, I believe a big problem is scale. The bigger the operation and the more money and people in circulation, the more complicated it gets keeping it under control, and the easier it is to piss away, or outright sneak away even larger amounts of money. I'm not saying that Norway doesn't waste money, because we do, and to some extent, given that none of us are God, waste is unavoidable in big operations. However, the bigger and more complex the system, the larger the waste, and the easier it is to hide stealing, and the easier it is to just allocate funds at face-value, wasting money on unnecessary things, and throwing money where it is not quite certain what happens with it.

Get the decisions closer to the voters. It increases transparency, greatly increasing the legitimacy of the entire process, and it is kept in a controllable size. Waste is reduced considerably, and outright fraud becomes much more difficult.

Now I wonder why I'm not comfortable with the EU...

Peace
Dan

michaelcassio wrote:

we all agree that big government miss-manages/spends money, right? how then could you vote for a candidate that you know will raise taxes, take as much of the peoples money as they can get, then piss it away?

Exactly. The government doesn't need anymore money. They need far, far less.

1970RR wrote:

Yeah, you know where it goes all right - improving the bottom line of Carl Pohlad.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/54/75UU.html

Yeah...no shit eh?

It's absolutely staggering how few people on this board have even the slightest clue of what's going on in the world, and how it affects them.

What's ever more shocking is that they are defiant in their ignorance.