How can we believe that that candidates – esp. those who promise to being “change” to Washington can actually accomplish anything. The proposed earmarks moratorium was soundly defeated in the Senate.



Questions for the debate.

1. Based on the lopsided defeat for even a 1 year moratorium on earmarks – how can we believe “change” is possible?
2. Hillary alone requested 342 Million in earmarks and Obama was 330 million for 2007. Do you feel this can change or should change?
3. How can you “change Washington” when, as we know, the Congress controls spending in Washington and all the President has is the veto? And in this case the veto would have been overridden.
4. Is this just another year of political rhetoric – filled with promises that are unlikely to come true? Why or Why not?
5. Only McCain has refused to request earmarks for his home state. Does this give him more credibility on spending issues for the 08 elections?

5. Only McCain has refused to request earmarks for his home state. Does this give him more credibility on spending issues for the 08 elections?

No! McCain has given no signal that he wants to stop the war in Iraq. How do we balance the budget if we continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on perpetual war?

What perpetual war. Are you talking of the “hundred year” taken out of context statement?

And who would “end the war” – Not Hillary or Obama. They talk about starting to move troops out - but follow up publically or privately by saying they will “consult with the military”. Imo code for we do it their way. esp now that a majority of Americans doen't want to run.

Let me try to answer all these questions in one phrase:

It is infinitely better to spend dollars on domestic projects (read: earmarks) than waste them on rebuilding some country thousands miles away majority of Americans will have trouble finding on a map.

We tend to forget what those "earmarks" are. Booo! Earmarks! In reality, earmarks are, by and large, are just domestic projects that need to be done. Roads re-paved. Bridges re-built. New schools and hospitals consructed. Yes, McCain is against "earmarks", but he is "for" continuing the war in Iraq whatever the costs. And costs have been enormous so far. So, to me, he has 0 (zero) credibility on spending issues.

In reality, earmarks are pork, pure and simple. PORK. If you want to re-pave a road, introduce a bill to re-pave a road, re-build a bridge, or even build a new bridge to nowhere. Don't stick it into some totally unrelated bill at the last moment in the dead of night. If all these domestic projects are so important, why not introduce a separate bill for them and allow open debate on them? McCain has said he'll veto bills with pork in them, and that might be an interesting thing to see.


Aquilla

No! I didn't mention the hundred year statement, but it will come back to bite McCain in the rear end. By perpetual war I'm referring to where he might lead us during or after Iraq and what he might propose for expanding the military and its cost.

Let's also remember the perpetual cost of caring for soldiers returning with limbs blown off.

McCain has shown no interest in reducing U. S. presence in Iraq. What next? Iran?

He hasn't made an Eisenhower like statement, "I will go to Iraq."

Spoken like a true liberal Democrat – and when the SPEND, SPEND is happening and we need money we have to TAX TAX TAX.

The place I disagree is the “need” part. Most of this PORK gets literally no review – it is piled on to other bigger bills and slid through.

Did we need this:

The Bridge to Nowhere: A National Embarrassment
by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
WebMemo #889
Today, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) will offer an amendment to the Senate’s appropriation bill to transfer the $223 million that Congress had previously approved for a bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, to fund reconstruction of a hurricane-damaged bridge in Louisiana. Dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the bridge in Alaska would connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $320 million, by way of three separate earmarks in the recent highway bill. At present, a ferry service runs to the island, but some in the town complain about its wait (15 to 30 minutes) and fee ($6 per car). The Gravina Island bridge project is an embarrassment to the people of Alaska and the U.S. Congress. Fiscally responsible Members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm



NO. McCain has shown no interest in running fro Iraq. Or invading Iran - (nice try )

And you are right – long after this Wright thing is dead the liberal media will be using the misstatement againt McCain.

As Vermillion used to say, Ted "you are making up stuff again" and, I might add, in such haste that you can't seem to get all the letters in your words. It makes me think you are posting just to be posting.

Please show me where I've made a prediction on when the Wright controversy will end. I've said a lot about it, but made no predictions.

In fact, Ted, in your off-topic comment, you are accusing me of saying what you said on the other thread.

Ah yes- one man's pork- another man's needed project. since I live here- I will use BAs words on you Ted- there is jack and less than jack, and you don't know jack.

We have a real massive split right now in the alaskan republican party, as we try to force out Don Young, Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens (that one is tough even for me, that guy has given his entire life to this state, and at least one wife, who died in a plane crash while he was doing state biz) - and trying to balance this issue of what our state needs for infrastructure and the bullying we get from "the lower 48" in regards to our needs.

Gravina Island project had the Ketchikan residents split pretty down the middle, and perhaps most of the state, by a slim margin, understanding the need for this bridge. The Knik arm bridge we are still trying for- there is no way to expand Anchorage except across the inlet, and we want the same thing so many other states want- federal money for needed infrastructure.

We are sitting in the same place the rest of the nation was at in 1958 infrastructure wise, but, without "uncle" Ted and don young, we would have been left in the cold.

I don't expect most "Lower 48" types to understand this issue- you guys never have- that is why we keep elected folks like Don Young- most personally dislike the man, but hold thier nose and vote anyway- because we need guys like him to pry what we need from DC.

You guys don't know jack about everything from ANWR to the northwest passage to polar bear migration- yet contantly wiegh in on issues and cause problems for all Alaskans, and most of the interference is pure politics or outright ignorance.

Take the "serengeti of the north" moniker- those folks CLEARLY have never been there- winter or summer. A winter wasteland in winter, a haven for mosquitoes and caribou and other "serengeti" type junk in the summer- 'course, you can only drill in the winter.

So, I am not against earmarks really- I am against excess, like Don Young's earmarks for a FLORIDA developer (the thing that very well may get him sent to jail at worst, lose his job over at best)-

but the earmark thing I find as a red herring. Everyone complains about THE OTHER GUYS pork- not the thing that affects them or thier state.

Well, except for Ron Paul anyway.

If the people of Alaska need a bridge that serves a few dozen people and they want money for it from the "lower 48", fine. ASK for it by submitting the "Anchorage expansion bridge to nowhere bill", and have a debate and vote on it. If congress approves, you get your bridge, but sneaking into a bill that has nothing to do with the frozen north in the dead of night is hardly an open process. If it's such a great idea, why are y'all afraid of an open debate on it?


Aquilla

that is exactly the kind of response we are used to- and completely unfair to our state. Federal money built most of the bridges and hiways in the nation- why should Alaska be the only state to have to use state resources to build neccesary infrastructure?

Especially considering how MANY infrastructure projects - good, important projects- are done through earmarks and amendments. In fact, we just had a state bill (nothing federal or anything) we used the amendment process and earmark proccess in state to make assaulting a hospital employee a felony, and provided the money to pay for the law.

Earmarks as a tool are not evil or good in and of themselves- it is a way for minorty, or small states, to get what we need when we don't have the leverage or national interest to get what we need- that is part of our constitutional debate back in the founding fathers day- how do we keep all monies and resources from just going to the large cities and big populations, and from ignoring the little guy and the rural states?

It is also why small pop states like ours reject term limits, reject the ending of earmarks and last minute amendments- because we will NEVER get a fair shake form the Texas-California-new york type states.

I mean, my gawd- you guys actually bought into that sean penn film "into the wild" as if it were an accurate representation of an Alaskan adventurer, instead of a over indulged brat and mildly mentally ill loser.

What really, REALLY torques us off is the constant chatter about Alaska, and ONLY Alaska- needs to make sacrifices for post-Katrina rebuilding and what not- you did not see any bills diverting major projects away from Texas, California and New York for rebuidling New Orleans- and they get massive billions of dollars in transportation bills.

It is also part of our memory of north slope oil- for years, we had a moratorium on being allowed to sell our oil to anyone but America- specifically, the west coast- and it kept the prices artificially low. No restrictions on California , Texas, Pennsylvania, Wyoming or any other state, they were allowed to sell to the highest bidder- only Alaska had this restriction. Stupid, and just plain wrong, not to mention, more than a bit "socialist" - wouldn't you say?

We have animal rights activists that attempt to use people like McCain (who has been no friend to Alaska, and in fact, has voted against opening Anwr, I believe, every time)

My point is this- ending earmarks is all great and good if you have the number of reps in place to force the vote to a floor and get what you want- but Alaska, for probably a very long time- will NEVER have that option- we are in an uphill battle every time we have something introduced, or try to introduce ourselves, an item that is wanted by all Alaskans, because we only get one measly house member- just one. In a body of over 400 members, doesn't mean we have much clout to get things done when we need them done.

For instance- here is a classic example- and it affect alaska ONLY- and requires NO money from the federal goverment- in fact, saves them money- but we have never had success in changing federal law-

In Alaska- we have a very, very powerfully equal rights for all statements in our constitution- the reason we have marijuana as a legal substance is the strong libertarian-privacy language- unless we change our state constitution, there is no way to make simple possession illegal. That is an example of the nature of our constitution here-

Anyway- we have this clause that demands equal access to all game in alaska- no matter what race you are, religion creed. whatever- you have equal access to subsistance lifestyle. Everybody gets to hunt, no matter what, and if the game is limited (which, of course, it is) you have a lottery. Very fair- but the feds have a rule that rural gets preference- which is insane in Alaska, as you are PART of the food chain as soon as you step off the hiway- we have bears and wolves right in the middle of the city- and a thriving population of "urban moose" (no foolin')- why? Because Alaskans understand the enviroment and hunting better than anyone on the planet- it is why it is sustainable.

But we have never been able to get the change through congress because of lobbying by Alaskan natives, that demand preferance, not for just rural, but ONLY Alaskan natives (many of whom haven't lived in the state for two generations )

But it is very, very easy to block even the most mundane and trivial, on the federal level, but vitally important, sometimes, the most important issues, to our state.

Even when it is something that is supposed to be FOR our state, it ends up screwing us over- like the magnusen act- supposed to preserve the heritage of the independent Alaskan fisherman- it pretty much sold out the entire state's interest to Washington state, and we have very few locally owned fishing companies anymore- because, you know, this dude named Magnuson wrote it, with Stevens, though, stevens was unable to get the provisions that protected alaskan interests, only the provisions that prevented Russian trawlers from taking from the US interests entirely.

Ya, so anyway- small states stand to lose everything by an earmark moritorium, and heavily populated states lose nothing.

Oh pulleeese......... Do you ever actually post anything factual here, CR? We know you hate Reagan and Bush, and Christians and Republicans, that is a fact, but do you ever really post anything else factual. The FACT of the matter is that the federal government spends more money per capita on Alaska than any other state in the union. From this we get the following......



An then of course, Alaska doesn't even have an income tax, does it? From this........



So, spare me yet another fictional post..... You guys wanna build a bridge that half a dozen people might use.... Do on your own dime or at least bring it up for debate in Congress.


Aquilla

I'm surprised Clinton didn't get more earmarks. She should be #2 or #3 considering the money NY puts into federal coffers.

How can you "change Washington" when, as we know, the Congress controls spending in Washington and all the President has is the veto?
All the president has is a veto? Poor George Bush. The boy king can flaunt Congress' will on any subject he likes with a signing statement, including a recent one that he can negotiate permanent bases in Iraq without Congress' leave, but wouldn't you know it? He couldn't veto and/or write an executive order for six years while the GOP funneled pork to their states. Whateve.

We're not going to change D.C. Let me put it this way. I'd rather put an end to military adventurism first and deal with domestic pork I don't like later. I can accept the perils of domestic spending and social experimentation because we have a self-correcting, legitimate system in place: elections and the corresponding peaceful transfer of power. Social Security hasn't led to an insurgency and we can, at least in theory, recall bad policy through elections.

Telling myself our government gives a damn about foreign peoples when it barely gives a crap about us takes more Kool-Aid than I can guzzle after doing a bong. There is no self-correcting mechanism once we suffer casualties and pour billions into projects like Iraq. Suddenly and predictably people care more about saving face by staying the course and getting a return on investment for the blood and Treasure than making the kind of cost-savings analysis reserved for domestic projects.

Here are the Senators who voted against. Besides Hillary and Obama, I think only one other Democrat voted for this, and I bet that most of the Republicans are up for reelection in 2008. These Senators just know that we have short memories. Sad.
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

INteresting- should Texas, Washington and Nevada have to build all thier own infrastructure? Should they have to pay for every road and bridge themselves? All of those states have massive populations (compared to ours- that is why I left off Wyoming too) and lots and lots of senators that can get things done, despite attitudes such as yours- and, other than the transportation bill (which, at one time, Don Young was heading, and his earmarks were for Alaskans that got him in trouble- it was for a florida project!)

I did not post one infactual thing- all you did was say "you don't have a state income tax"- didn't say otherwise myself- I just pointed out, that without earmarks, amendment and such- we get trampled by the high population states, and as it is, we get crybabies like yourself, that, because we DON'T have the clout, and, at least not in my lifetime- ever will, to match capital projects the size we need to build stuff we need.

the infrastructure stuff we need would break our state several times over- it is the shear size of our state that makes it impossible for other states to understand, and the newness of our state as well.

We have 1/3 the landmass of the "lower 48" and really, one road in, one road out of our state. We have no roads or rail or ANYTHING to by far the largest parts of our state, and will not be able to develope massive parts of our state, until we get federal money to do it- it is just too large otherwise.

Top it off with how little we are ALLOWED to develope as well, as most of our state has been roped off as "untouchable".

90% of ALL infrastructure in Alaska has been built AFTER 1982, the year that the pipeline started paying off in it's initial investment.

And BTW- much of our resources goes to FEDERAL taxes- and they never seem to count that in so many "stats" we see- we contribute far, far, far more in revenues than we use- because BP and those types pay thier "royalties" to the feds, then us- but wierdly enough- no one seems to count that as a contribution of how much the lower 48 leaches off of Alaska- in fact, ANWR has to be paid over 50% of the oil into the federal coffers- not our state. Go a couple feet into the water, making it "off shore"- the feds get 90% of ALL revenues from that oil- and that is in the billions and billions of dollars.

Pretty much, we get ripped off two ways- the feds should get a big fat 0 if they want us to fund our own infrastructure- sure, I am cool with that- feds get nothing, we will use the hundreds of billions of dollars of oil revenue to fund or whole state's needs (there is a very strong succession movement, or was for years, over this issue- with some local state senators actually getting elected on that platform in the 80s)

Bottom line is- to compare road dollars spent- you need to start at Eisenhower's administration, and give us the same % of federal dollars all states in America recieved for thier infrastructure- all from federal dollars, and make it up until 1982.

That is the most often stated reason for re-electing Don Young- because we know how we get treated without some seniority there, and how without it- we would get nothing- of course- I bet you won't see Texas being required to build all it's own infrastructure- and I am talking about 80% of every road in Texas- with it's own money. Hey- I got an idea- just to be fair- let's require every dollar from every state that has recieved federal dollars for thier infrastructure be given back to the feds, beause, hey, they should pay for it thier own damn selves- no different from what you are asking from Alaska.

There is no way we will EVER get ANYTHING for this state except more federal people sticking thier hands in our pie- if ANYTHING is left to a straight vote- after all, Don Young is one vote in over 400, and we can NEVER be expected to be treated fairly by the "lower 48" in any debate regarding Alaska- heck we can't even get them to amend federal law just to allow equal access to game to align itself with our state constitution.

Bottom line is- without earmarks and amendments- there is no way we would get ANY return on the federal goverments massive revenue on our states oil.

Once again- is Texas, California, Wyoming or Pennsylvania ever been required to sell it's oil only domestically? Do you believe it fair to only require that of Alaska?

We got that changed, through Don Young mostly, so we could sell our oil to the highest bidder, instead of price fixing to feed LAs smog- and it was never introduced as it's own bill succesfully.

BTW- all of your numbers are "per capita" I notice- a function of our very low population, a very, very fast growing one BTW- in the 80s, and some of the 2000s, we had the fastest growing population "per capita" in the nation- the very reason driving the need for infrastructure building. And the feds have so much of our land and resources locked up, we can't develope those and pay for anything for ourselves.

That means, you build, oh, one road to McGrath, and it costs 100 million dollars. Divide that up among less than 600k poeple- and oh man, do we get alot of bucks. But, bridge for bridge, hiway for hiway- we lose, big time.

Still- I never once said INDIVIDUAL income taxes were high here- but they would be massively high, probably over 75% of our incomes, if we had to pay for our infrastructure- something NOT demanded of the other "oil states"- it is only Alaska that is singled out this way.

So very, very misleading- and once again- oil revenues to the feds are not counted in your figures- we are the highest taxed place in the nation- if you count what the state itself loses in oil revenues by the feds grubby fingers.

First all, Alaska has the same number of Senators as any other state has. That is a good thing and part of the beauty of our system. It is designed to give equal representation on a state basis in one legislative branch, regardless of the population of the state.

And, I'm not arguing that Alaska isn't an important state. It is a hugely important member of the union. And, I'm not arguing that Alaska has some special and unique needs that other states don't have. And, I'm not arguing against Federal dollars being spent to address those unique needs. Quite the contrary. I think improvements to Alaska's infrastructure that will improve productivity would be an enormous benefit to the entire country. There are compelling arguments that should be made on the floors of Congress for doing exactly that. And, that's where they should be made, in public, in the light of day with their own bill for debate and a vote. Call it the "Alaska Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2008". Find some co-sponsors for it, were I a Senator from California, I'd be willing to consider signing on to it and argue for it on the floor of the Senate.

My problem isn't with the needs of Alaska being addressed, but rather with the process that is being used - the earmark process. Attaching earmarks to bill in the dead of night, in smoke-filled rooms without any public discussion at all. If this is the way your representatives need to get things done, then perhaps you need some new representatives who are capable of making better arguments. That's kind of what they're being paid to do. If you need a new highway built that will handle bigger or more efficient trucks to move oil and supplies, fine. Good idea, make the case. If you want a railroad line built to the northern oil fields that will end up in a net result of higher productivity and lower pollution, great idea! Make the case. Just make it in public, not behind closed doors and snuck into some bill in the dead of night.

Edited to add.....


I recently drove halfway across the country on I-40 and I gotta tell you, that is one fabulous highway, especially through Arizona. Cruise control set at 80 and you just kick back and mow down the miles. John McCain represents Arizona and he doesn't use earmarks. How in the hell did he get that highway funded?
Aquilla

Sorry- misspoke- Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski are Alaska's senators- Don Young it the lone legislator- and without earmarks, all of what you said doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting passed, ever. ANWR is especially problematic now- as both McCain AND Obama have voted against opening it-

and by the way- I am quite proud of the new republican wing in Alaska that is throwing out the old guard Neo-con types- in fact, proud to be an Alaskan republican, as the party has actually formed a coalition with the dems to oust and marginalize the extreme and corrupt wing of the republican party-

I am sure Don Young will lose his seat, to another republican- most likely, in my crystal ball, it will be Sean Parnell, who announced his candidacy at the republican convention here, right in front of Don Young- who got ALL mad and flustered, and started talking smack.

So I don't hate republicans- I hate the republicans that had taken over the party, and am saddened by the fact that the national party couldn't change itself from it's disastrous policies since Reagan.

Our state republican party has transformed itself, seriously. In fact, it has transformed itself so thorgoughly that our former governer, the most hated man in Alaska today, basically a persona non-grata in our state, to our current guv, who's name is being bandied about as a possible VP pick- while she is pregnant with her fifth child.

But Aquilla, the term limit, earmark, amendment, commitee and seniority rules are there for the small states, so that we don't ge run over by the large population states- it is a major check and balance against LA, New York and other large cities that would even over-rule the rural areas of thier own states- that is why places like Alaska- that has over 50% of it's population in one city, has some of the same checks and balances, and there is STILL a very legitimate issue that Anchorage runs roughshod over the rest of the state- which is true and not true. We have to fund our own school district- no other city in the state has to do this- the state funds the schools- but Anchorage has to pay property taxes to fund our schools.

So, basically- without these checks and balances against the tyranny of the majority- we will have just that.

The way the "bridges to nowhere"- one DEFINATELY being to somewhere- was a classic example of our needs being torpedoed by powerful political forces, so we have to sneak it in somewhere else- 'cause we sure ain't gonna get a fair hearing on it on it's own!

No? You think they are mostly “good” and reviewed by someone? The answer is that no one reads 11,000 earmarks or makes any assessment of their merit in the Congress. There clowns we all elect use this PORK to help get them re elected.

And the idea that Dems don’t pander to “special interests” as they pile on the PORK is ludicrous. Both parties waste our money and the special interests get much of it – when is it going to STOP. Obviously with this vote the Congress is telling us – NOT SOON.

So tell me again how Barrack O is going to “change” anything except the identity of the biggest beneficiaries for the pork? He will be right behind his majority Party I Congress spending away – and anytime he even thinks he can actually change anything – this type of vote will bring him back to reality.

As for Alaska I would love to see the Congress let Alaska drill for oil – but you know CR no Dem controlled Congress will ever do that. But you want Obama - LOL

Let's look at definition of pork, shall we? Here's one from Encarta:



So tell me Ted, why is it that government-funded projects that bring jobs and other benefits to an area bother you so much? Once again - pork is domestic projects. Much has been made about this bridge to nowhere in Alaska, but at the very least it benefits a couple of dozens of our own citizens. Billions that we spent on reconstructing Iraq, and billions that we will spend down the road - they are benefiting citizens of Iraq, but not citizens of US of A. That doesn't seem to bother you much, Ted. Why is that, I wonder? I've never seen you riled up here about wastefulness in Iraq - it's only when American citizens are beneficiaries of government spending, then it rubs you the wrong way... (Ok, this is a rhetorical question, and I know you don't value Iraqi citizens higher than your fellow Americans... but still... let's first fix a water main break, and then we'll fix the small leaks).

And, by the way, never have I been more proud to be called a Liberal Democrat than during the last 7 years... A badge of Honor really.

True dat EH- a liberal now is a much more honorable place to be than a self described conservative- no doubt about it

and Ted- our senators DID try to sneak through ANWR a couple times via earmarks- nearly torpedoed a couple bills with it in fact- we have been trying for 20 years- and a completely republican presidency and republican majority in both houses and supreme court didn't open it either- so why the hatin' on the dems- when your own republicans couldn't get the job done- or did the big bad dems just pick on the poor widdle republican majorty?

And really, ANWR will be great for Alaska- and I support it 100% - but Ted, what is good for Alaska isn't going to help you folks one bit- I sincerely wish it would-but it won't.

And, again, we are seeing noises of how we shouldn't be able to sell that oil in the same manner as Texas, California, Pennsylvania and Wyoming are allowed to do- there are movements to try to force us to sell it to the American suppliers in the US ONLY.

And that is because no one is going to be able to go against the massive power of Texas and California or Pennsylvania, since we just don't have the house numbers that those states do.

I mean, unless all American oil, pumped in america, is forced to be sold to American markets only- why is ANWR such a big deal Ted?

It is that kind of ignorance about Alaska and the global oil market that Alaska has to combat every session, and we are almost always slapped down, because we have such a small population. I mean, LA has more than 4 times the population that we have, and have more reps in the house than our whole state does!

Without earmarks, seniority and amendments- we have no tools at all to work for the good of our state- which does frequently help out everyone.

.

Because as YOU said “and give its political representative the opportunity to award favors and reap the ensuing prestige” – so how do we know that this is good for the “country” and the best way to spend our money? No review – just slipped in as political payoff for well healed supporters. The WORST of politics. And if every time we discuss all you liberals can bring up is the “war” – don’t bother. This problem goes well beyond any current spending.

How much of the trillions spent this way could have been put to better use? How about energy independence? We have been told for DECADES we were doing something about it and all we get is lip service and self serving PORK – which seems to be ok with you because we hire a few people – did you miss the fact that MILLIONS of Americans work in the defense industry.



I have said numerous times I would never have gone in without knowing were the WMD was – and we didn’t. That said I am not for running for the door as you are. And the “wastefulness” in Iraq is small compared to what our government wastes on a regular basis. As has been pointed out elsewhere our addiction to oil is now costing us more than this war ever will for many years to come and while your friends in Congress spend the PORK we are stuck with their inaction and we are paying. I I mean both parties.


Yes Republican earmarks – and the chance went to ZERO once the Dems took over as Teddy and the Party left is against it as will be any Dem who gets elected. They have Republicans too needless to say – the environmentalist left has shafted us well and now we will pay more than Iraq or any war for the stupidity – and we deserve it.

It should be perfectly clear by now that the REPS&DEMS "WILL NOT" and don't want to do a good job at running America!!!!
And they really don't have to (So far) !!!!!

"Why" ??????...................... They don't have to !!!!

No matter what they do most Americans will just vote these two known "CORRUPT" parties back in to power !!!!!!

So why be responsible, when you can get filthy rich from stupid US tax payers ? Bwaahaahaahaahahaha!

These facts that you just pointed out, added to the fact that the Congress has continually given
"THEMSEVLES" raises even though the state of America has been worsening, is a blatant
Big Fat Giant F.U. to the American people! But how many Americans will vote back these lying, deceitful,
Corrupt parties back in to power??
(Just the dumb ones)


I'm voting for Nader ! Unless R. Paul gets back in the race.

What about using the normal budgetary process? If anything really needs to be done, then why can't it go through that? Nothing against Alaska (grew up in Montana, which is just as small and without the oil clout)...but why not ban ALL earmarks, and stop letting Congress critters pencil in money for their constituency without having it be part of the normal voting process? It really doesn't have anything to do with any state's size--they all have the same number of Senators, and each representative only represents his district. It's all about this is how I get stuff for MY district. Well, who pays for all of this stuff? We ALL do. If we stopped having earmarks, then we'd have enough left in the budget to pay for all the stuff that really that was worthwhile doing. All earmarks are is a way to grab money for pet projects for your district without having to have it go through the normal process. Buy votes, in other words, and with OUR money.

Highways last forever in climates like Arizona--no rain to then freeze and cause frost heave in the pavement. New York? Alaska? Not so much.

You've obviously never been to Flagstaff, AZ in the wintertime.


Aquilla

Because the smaller states get left out of the overall budgetary pie without he checks and balances Hobbes.

The explanation is just that simple. And it would happen to lots of areas, as coalitions of cities with heavy populations could pretty much take all the the pie, and leave nothing for states like Alaska- because, of all things, the vote trading, commitee votes trading, seniority, knowing the rules of the game very well, earmarks and amendments are the ONLY tools small population areas have to keep the big population city centers from running roughshod all over the rural and low pop states.

It has actually worked quite well for most of our history, and it is hard for me to identify a single project here in Alaska as "pork". I know the list that is kept about Stevens- but most of that list claims is "pork" is downright lies from our point of view. Capital projects for our state have always made the money back- because we are a net revenue state. Sure, the state has more PER CAPITA spending than anyone in the US, but we have a far higher per capita revenue than anyone as well- as long as you count the federal revenues from the oil royalties. Oh and mining royalties, and other "resource" things like Coal (the Usibelli coal mine is a big money maker)

The federal goverment recieves this money- on shore, by our statehood charter- we recieve 90% of the revenues- the rest of the states, get 50%. If offshore, then it is 50%.

The federal goverment gets mega bucks off Alaska, in so many, many ways- and it is very, very hard for us to get any of it back.

But, without the system we got- the lower 48 would just be a nation of parasites sucking us dry.

Oh, BTW Ted- why couldn't your republicans get the job done when they had 100% of the branches of goverment- speaking of ANWR.

One of the main holdups is the Feds want a bigger share of the pie- they want 50% of the revenues. It was veteran and down and dirty infighting by our "team" that has kept that off the table as a requirement for opening ANWR.

Better to keep it closed and wait until the "lower 48" gets thier heads out of thier butts and figures out revenue from oil is sometimes it's best reward, if done safely and cleanly.

The state pays most of our own way in maintanence, which is astronomically higher in Alaska than anywhere in America, by a factor of 3 or more from what I have heard state DOT and city engineers and planners- in fact, Anchorages #1 budget is school, and road maintenance is one of the major issues on how much to spend and set aside etc etc- it is a HUGE bit of prior planning magic- a low snow year, over budgeted, would be better to have shifted it to prosecutors office or fire stations or whatever. Not enough- nieghborhoods buried in 3 foot of snow for weeks. There is an entire industry of snow removal here. A heavy snowfall means lots and lots of money for guys with plows, low snow year- better not have that plow on payments!

Anyway- you won't find anyone in Alaska crying in thier beers over the loss of the earmark crap.

Don Young, Lisa Murkowski and Ted STevens are all corrupt as hell, and we all know it- but we also know what we will lose if we lose them at the same time.