I'm sure many of you will throw stones at me for my "political source" but it's referring to a recent New York Times article and I thought it was interesting:
The Ongoing Scandal of Earmarking
It looks like a scene out of an old movie: one about shady politicians and back-room deals. You can almost smell the cigar smoke and see the dirty money changing hands.
But unfortunately, it’s not an old film. It’s a real-life picture of the United States Congress. The cigars are gone, but the dirty deal-making is thoroughly up-to-date. And at the head of it is Rep. John Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania.
As the New York Times put it this week, Murtha has operated a “political trading post in a back corner of the House of Representatives.” Earmarks are expenditures that bypass the budgeting process and earn approval without debate. Many are infamous—like Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere.”
On a typical day, according to the Times, “a gang of about two dozen Democrats mill around [Murtha’s] seat. A procession of others walk back to request pet spending projects.” Republicans come by, too, hoping to convince Murtha to enlist Democrats “to join them on close votes.”
As the Times puts it, “As the top Democrat on the House military spending subcommittee, [Murtha] often delivers Democratic votes to Republican leaders in a tacit exchange for earmarks for himself and his allies.” Whether lawmakers are looking for votes or a piece of pork, “Nobody ever leaves completely disappointed,” says one member.
Earmarks waste a whopping $64 billion a year, and they corrupt lawmakers, bribing them “to vote for a piece of legislation they wouldn’t ordinarily give two minutes to,” according to another member.
They also allow special-interest groups to put a stranglehold on our political system. But Murtha is unapologetic about what he does. “Deal making is what Congress is all about,” he says.
Come on! This “Let’s Make a Deal” approach makes Congress look more like a tobacco auction than a legislative body. It reminds me of the system in England from which the term rotten borough originated. The slave traders literally bought members of Parliament. It’s what William Wilberforce fought against. And so should we.
Congress and the press are in an uproar to throw out Congressman Foley (R-Fla.). Good. But don’t let it serve as a smokescreen to keep attention away from a much bigger corruption. Now, Murtha may think Congress is about deal-making, but our founders knew it was supposed to be about advancing the common good. In “Federalist Paper No. 10,” James Madison identified the critical question for any society: How do you assure that private factions do not undermine the public good?
The founders built into the Constitution checks and balances “to pit ambition against ambition and make it impossible for any elements of government to obtain unchecked power.” This is precisely what we see in earmarks.
Now, I know many Christians in Congress—honest, decent people—who don’t engage in unethical deal-making. But anybody who does ought to be retired by the voters. The first question we ought to ask any congressmen coming home to campaign is: “Do you trade your vote for earmarks, or do you vote your conscience?”
Christians need to persuade their neighbors to demand Congress to abandon the “what’s in it for me?” approach in favor of “What is good for all?”
I know there will always be corruption in the system, and that private factions *will* probably continue to undermine the public good -- I just hope people keep getting caught in it and that more voters become aware of it
blah blah blah liberals democrats blah blah blah we are the party of morals and accountability blah blah liberal smokescreen hey dont look over here look at the democrats
Dems (at the moment) are by FAR the less guilty party of doing this. The referenced Alaskan "bridge to nowhere" was by a frickin republican! Of course, when the dems were in power they did much of the same. Now, not all republicans are in this (a few of them vote against any bill that requires more taxes/spending - you know, the true fiscal conservatives) but the labeling of them as "christians in congress ... who don't engage in unethical dealmaking" is just flat out wrong. The worst offenders for pork is ALWAYS the party in the majority - because they have the power and use it.
Blaming the democrats for this is just asinine... and then suggesting that "true" christians don't do it so vote for those god-fearing republicans? What a crock of fucking shit. This so-called article belongs in the bin.
So this article points the finger at a democrat who promises votes in exchange for special earmark funds for republicans, but not the republican run congress that introduced it and voted on it, or the republican presidential administration that approved it?
what's next? are you going to blame gore for not winning the election in 2000 and turning the entire country into a massive, debt ridden, internationally hated clusterfuck?
99% of the people you vote for are corrupt or soon corrupted by the system now in place. Sadly it will only get worse so long as only 40% of the people vote.
I bet more than 40% would vote if there was someone running who would be worth voting for. I have abstained from the last several elections, because there hasn't been a candidate running that I could honestly say would do a *reasonably* decent job. Look at the mess we're in now. I'm nearly positive it would have been worse if John Kerry had been elected. The man undergoes Botox injections, for fucks sake! We're dealing with the better choice right now... what kind of selection is that crap? I could have voted Nader, but I would not have wanted that man in office. So I sat at home and drank beer and thought about life in 4 years...
kyoukan wrote:what's next? are you going to blame gore for not winning the election in 2000 and turning the entire country into a massive, debt ridden, internationally hated clusterfuck?
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
