Posted on 10/29/2005 11:26:41 PM PDT by Tom87
You heard what the Senate did to Tom Coburn's attempt to impose some sanity on spending.
How do they live with themselves?
Years ago, interviewing economist Walter Williams for a show ABC News called "Greed," I was perplexed when Williams said, "a thief is more moral than a congressman; when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
That was silly hyperbole, I thought, but watching Congress spend, I see that I was naive and Williams was right.
When the Democrats held power, I confronted Sen. Robert Byrd about wasting our money on "Robert Byrd Highway"-type projects in West Virginia. His answer was as arrogant as he was: "I would think that the national media could rise above the temptation of being clever, decrepitarian critics who twaddlize, just as what you're doing right here."
"Twaddlizing?" I asked.
"Trivializing serious matters," he explained.
I persisted, "Is there no limit? Are you not at all embarrassed about how much you got?" Byrd glared at me in silence, and finally demanded, angrily, "Are you embarrassed when you think you're working for the good of the country? Does that embarrass you?"
The Republicans promised to change the culture. Democrats sold panic. "Don't vote for them! They're going to shrink government and take away your favorite programs!" They needn't have worried. The Republicans got elected, but if the Democrats' goal was to expand the government, they were the real winners.
Once Republicans were in power, they started spending money even faster than the Democrats did.
Big spender Ted Stevens responded to Coburn's good suggestion to kill a "Bridge to Nowhere" with a tantrum on the Senate floor: He threatened to resign and "be taken out of here on a stretcher."
Good! Sen. Stevens, please go. I'll even help carry the stretcher.
Unfortunately, Congress has an unwritten code: "Don't threaten the other congressmen's loot." The Senate reprimanded Coburn by voting 82 to 15 to save the Bridge to Nowhere.
The Ketchikan, Alaska, bridge is particularly egregious because it's a bridge to a nearly uninhabited island. Yet it will be monstrous -- higher than the Brooklyn Bridge and almost as long as the Golden Gate. Even some in Ketchikan laugh about it. One told us, "Short view is, I don't see a need for it. The long view ... I still don't see a need for it."
Last week, Alaska's other senator, Lisa Murkowski, said it would be "offensive" not to spend your money on her bridge. When she first became a senator, I asked her if Republicans believed in smaller government. She was unusually candid: "We want smaller government. But, boy, I sure want more highways and more stuff, whatever the stuff is."
I'll say. Alaska's pork projects spanned 67 pages. They get much more than other states. "Oh, you need to come up," she said. "You would realize it's not pork. It's all necessity ... People look at Alaska and say, 'Well, gee, they're getting all this money.' But we still have communities that are not tied in to sewer and water. There are certain basic things that you've got to have."
But my children shouldn't have to pay for them. If people want to live in remote areas of Alaska, why can't they pay for their own sewers and water, through state or local taxes, or better yet, through private businesses? Why should all Americans pay to run sewer lines through the vast, frozen spaces of Alaska? Because Alaska has no money?
Don't believe it. Alaska has so much money, it has no state income tax or sales tax. Instead, it gives its citizens money from something called the Alaska Permanent Fund.
Stevens, Murkowski and Don Young, who once told critics of the Bridge to Nowhere that they could "kiss his ear," are not unique. Republican politicians talk about limited government, but the longer they are in power, the more they vote to spend.
Spending your money, they want "more stuff."
"Twaddlizing?"
I'm pretty sure that's illegal in Georgia.
The vast majority of senators of BOTH parties, in my opinion, are completely pathetic. They are like a deck party of elites on the Titanic.
I miss the days of firing squads and keel hauling.
IMO, the battles should be: 1. establish term limits, being a politician should NOT be a career, I suggest a maximum of 8 years total with regard the congress i.e. 4 terms house, or 1 term house, 1 term senate, if we keep the popular election of senators - see next item; 2. eliminate popular election of senators, they are supposed to represent their state not the people, that's the representatives' job. I find it incredible that in a country which professes to be established on the idea of States' Rights, the only entity that has no direct representation in congress are those same states. Go back to what the constitution originally had; 3. set up terms so that time spent in office is 3 months DC, 3 home, 3 DC, 3 home. That would sure keep them down home where we, their bosses, are, not in the elitist atmosphere of DC; 4. something has to be done about campaign finance, and the kind of bills they do now are not the answer. IMO, the only real answer is to eliminate any kind of direct campaign finance. So, all contributions would go to one huge fund and that would be divided between all candidates qualified and running for office. Like that would ever happen. But, it sure is one way to eliminate 'influence', since no one would know who contributed to their campaigns, lol. Just getting my frustrations out there....
Well, it's time to give up on the Republicans.
It seems we're doomed to a huge debt and huge spending.
Remember that this bill passed 85 to 15. That means plenty of Republicans supported it. They apparently didn't have the balls to say no.
Reagan did the same thing. He ran the defecit up, won the cold war with it and then the Democrats had to raise taxes to pay it off. Reagan got what he wanted because Democrats would have thrown the money away and raised taxes anyway.
Maybe that's Bush's strategy.
Dr. Coburn is a good man, sound fellow. He is the most true conservative left in the Senate.
Regards, Ivan
Screw the Republican Party. Screw the democRat Party. Useless parasites, all of them.
I'm sorry. I know Coburn's amendment was symbolic, but I'd much rather send money to the bridge to nowhere than anywhere near the corrupt Louisiana political machine.
What's the difference between a politician and a con artist? A con artist will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. A politician will build the bridge for you "At no extra cost."
You're way off.
The problem is that we have too much democracy. People are voting themselves money. It's as simple as that. Anyone threatening restraint pisses off some group that's getting a hand-out or subsidy. You don't win elections without buying votes with tax-payer money.
If you want restraint, the first thing you could do is get everyone to pay taxes. When bridges to nowhere stop being "free" to large numbers of voters, then they might change. But tell me, who's going to vote people into power that are going to tax them?
See, too much democracy. We have voters that pay too little in taxes, but want to be given large amounts of money.
As far as I'm concerned, if you receive government money, or you don't pay taxes, you should have no say concerning spending legislation. But that wouldn't be democratic. "The people" would have less power. Less power to steal from taxpayers, that is.
Hey, don't knock it 'til you've tried it.
I guess it's time the spread the corruption to Alaska, right?
That's the long-term effect of government spending like this.
Or maybe I suppose this spending is itself a form of corruption. At least of Republican principles.
I take hope from this, in a small way. At least there were 15 that voted for sanity. I would never have predicted that many ahead of time.
Sadly Louisiana will also get their share of pork.
Wow. A whole 15 votes to kill a totally-useless bridge to accomplish absolutely nothing. Yeah, that's dandy. Thank God for the Republican Party's victories over the years; it's really paid off, just like they promised. All that "limited government" going on.
Screw the Republican Party. A pack of lying, thieving parasites.
He ran the defecit up, won the cold war with it ==
It is wrong. Reagan didn't win cold war. He just astronomically increased US debts. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Just who are you going to take up arms with and who are you going to shoot? Are you some frustrated terrorist?
Unless you're under 14.
"It is wrong. Reagan didn't win cold war."
Sure he did. Ever since, there's been not one decent espionage book.
I'm not going to take up arms against anyone, I simply stated what I believe to be the truth. I'm not in favor of it but the increasing stratification of American culture cannot be ignored and there seems to be no instrument to stop it.
These people are shameless...
Why would Alaska want the dough spent on a bridge, which they can't eat, which can't care for their illnesses, which won't educate them? If there must be largesse surely there are smarter things to put the largesse towards.
I thought that was when you put that wad of cotton in a bottle of pills.
I think you've gotten it in one. It's gotten to the point that the number of people who benefit from federal handouts exceed the number who pay for them. The result is that voters have an interest in maintaining the status quo when it comes to federal programs.
About 20 years ago, the "throw the bums out" mentality had national-level term limits at the forefront of many discussions. But when polling organizations dug into it, what became clear was that everybody wanted someone else's bum thrown out, as long as their own bum was bringing home the gravy.
As far as I'm concerned, if you receive government money, or you don't pay taxes, you should have no say concerning spending legislation. But that wouldn't be democratic. "The people" would have less power. Less power to steal from taxpayers, that is.
You seem to be getting close to Heinlein's propostion -- that to vote, a person must be a citizen, and to become a citizen, that person must contribute to the public good in some way that demonstrates he or she is able and willing to put public good ahead of personal gain. It seems that idea would eliminate about 90 pct of our current political representation (except McCain, but then maybe we could put in a "stupid clause").
Ted Stevens' childish tantrum on the Senate floor was an embarrassment to Republicans. The whole lot of these spendthrifts--regardless of what letter they have after their name--need to be sent packing.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) gave one of the most galling performances of arrogance in that debate over his beloved pork that the Senate has ever seen. When he threatened to pick up his marbles and go home, the rest of the Senate caved like the wimps they are. Alaskans ought to be ashamed that this parasite represents their state.
Agreed, but you can't fight city hall (tho many have tried in Dallas:) and you definitely cant fight Congress and Senate.
WAIT what am I thinking yes we can next year 2006 ::wink::
Without infrastructure we'd be in a sorry place.
hmmmm...term limits ay?! Tried that in 1994. Got Newt Gingrich thrown to the wolves, got Bob Dole the presidential nod......
Creeping socialism. Creaping envirowackoism. It costs a few thou to build a septic field. It costs a few thou to drill a well. It cost a few pennies of juice, a day, to operate the pumps, and you don't have to pay a bill to the town...
I don't know of any towns in AK that don't have enough space...
I wonder how many years you could operate a couple of these, for just ONE Billion TAX dollars?
North Carolina has a fleet of them... the USERS pay to ride them!
WHY DEMOCRACIES FAIL
A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.(Written by Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time he was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.
REPUBLIC VS. DEMOCRACY, U.S.ARMY ANALYSIS <- Good read!
Even riding the ferry across the Hudson from NJ to NY is quite an experience in winter.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapse over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the worlds greatest civilization has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
*From bondage to spiritual faith
*from spiritual faith to great courage
*from courage to liberty
*from liberty to abundance
*from abundance to selfishness
*from selfishness to complacency
*from complacency to apathy
*from apathy to dependency
*from dependency back again to bondage."
-Alexander Fraser Tyler
Carolyn
You've never been to NC, have you? They may have some breezes, like us, but they don't have to dodge iceburgs. Do you really think it will be easier to drive across a high level bridge in the wind and icy snow?
I beleive their underlying premise is that an airport exists on the island, which needs better access. IMHO, it would be better planning, AND EXPENSE, to look for a mainland site.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not have a better friend than my colleague from Oklahoma, but it does not mean we always agree with each other. I have had a policy in voting for amendments on bills that I have adhered to for a long time, and it is if a Senator has a bill or an amendment that takes authority from an elected official and places it in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat and it does not save money, then I think it is not good policy. Unfortunately, I think that is what this does.My good friend Senator Coburn and I have talked about this. I know it is a difficult thing for a lot of people to understand. Many people are watching this. I happen to be the person with the No. 1 most conservative rating in the Senate and yet I am not about to put myself in a position where I am going to take authority away from someone who has to stand for election in a particular State and give it to someone who does not have to stand for election, period.
I do not think that is a good idea. If it were something that saved money, I would have a different position on it, but in that respect I will oppose this. ...
Mr. COBURN. I would say to my friend, whom I love dearly as a friend and a brother, this amendment is about changing the priorities in this country. We can reject that or we can accept it. I gave a speech this morning about the rumble that is out there in this country. We need to listen to that rumble. The rumble is the American people want us to start doing a better job of prioritizing how we spend money. I respect his position on this. I have no ill feelings that he will oppose me on this amendment.
This is an amendment that is good for the country. ...
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma who has just spoken, who is the author of this amendment, has indicated we need to be making sacrifices. I do not think anyone in the State of Alaska feels we should not be contributing, but we do not feel in the State of Alaska that it should be coming entirely from one State. This amendment puts the sacrifice on one State.
I urge rejection of this amendment. ...
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would add to my colleague's comment to say this concept is a concept that every State should think about because if it can be done on a bridge, why not do it on any type of event where a Senator would like to have money for their State, but they say take it from another State because they do not need it. I made a statement earlier today that in my 37 years I have never seen this. I have never seen a request that money for a disaster be taken solely from a project in one State to help a disaster in other States.
We are a disaster-prone State. We have more disasters than any other State in the Union. Remember our 1964 earthquake. We have tsunamis. We have all types of disasters. But we have never tried to take moneys from other States to meet our costs.
I urge the Senate not to start this process.
I yield back the time.
Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays. ...
YEAS--15 Allard Allen Bayh Burr Coburn Conrad DeMint DeWine Feingold Graham Kyl Landrieu Sessions Sununu Vitter NOT VOTING--3 Corzine McCain SchumerRoll Call Vote 00262 | On the Amendment S.Amdt. 2165 | Oct 20, 2005Mash here -> 109th Congress - Senate - October 20, 2005
Navigate to: 9 . TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, THE JUDICIARY, HOUSING ...
From now on, I'm voting for divided government.
My senator, and damn proud of him. He may impose voluntary term limits on himself, like he did in the House, but he doesn't need to worry about being reelected here in Oklahoma.
This IS truly disgusting.
The only way to get this one fixed is to stop sending money all the way to DC just so they can devalue it and send a portion back to the states. That's socialism right there.
If your state can't support the people in it, then your state and citizens should deal with it, period.
That's why gridlock is the best we can hope for.
Somebody yesterday made the observation that instead of that Alaskan Bridge To Nowhere, Uncle Sugar could instead buy each of the inhabitants of that island their own Lear Jet and still come out ahead!
You got that right.
It really boils my pot when slobs on welfare get to vote on raising property taxes to pay for schools, bike trails and other socialist garbage.
RE: The shame of the Alaskans - if I recall correctly most ALASKANS don't see the point of the bridge. What Stevens is doing is blatant pandering. Supposedly, the bridge will be built high enough to allow cruise ships to go under it and the bridge will somehow encourage investment - it seems to me that the building on the MAINLAND would be the better investment. This is an example of a congressional boondoggle at its finest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.