Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probably because he's not up for re-election for awhile but it just goes to show you, when it comes to pork, there aren't a lot of party differences.
The House GOP says no to pork. My other Senator says no to pork. But not Senator Lamar Alexander. What a disappointment.
"Many of Alexander's requests reflect his interest in the outdoors and preservation, including $8 million to add 10,000 acres to Cherokee National Forest, $3.5 million to build a new facility to house artifacts from Great Smoky Mountains National Park and $480,000 for restoration work at the Hermitage, President Andrew Jackson's home."
Probably because he's not up for re-election for awhile but it just goes to show you, when it comes to pork, there aren't a lot of party differences.
The House GOP says no to pork. My other Senator says no to pork. But not Senator Lamar Alexander. What a disappointment.
"Many of Alexander's requests reflect his interest in the outdoors and preservation, including $8 million to add 10,000 acres to Cherokee National Forest, $3.5 million to build a new facility to house artifacts from Great Smoky Mountains National Park and $480,000 for restoration work at the Hermitage, President Andrew Jackson's home."
I'm glad you raised this thread. This needs to be addressed in all states but my question to tennessee voters and politicians--- How are you willing to measure job performance if how big a pile of money obtained is the objective of the job?
Shouldn't an honest politician doing right by his people by not taking the money, or even taking measures to prevent further expenses, be rewarded?
This is the lousy thing about politics (and corporate life too- they are bedfellows after all)- they justify their existence or their value based on things that superficially matter while the things that matter most are neglected most. They're competing with hollywood, and voters seem to be telling politicians they want hollywood. Will they vote for the guy who takes the high road, or only the guy who fights dirty???
Hats off to the GOP members who said no to pork. My sincere respect. That leaking dam isn't something I'd consider pork though-- I'd call that preventing quantum costs by averting property damage.
Te coorp of engineeers can do that or he can introduce a bill to fix it. Pork is what is added to a existing bill that has nothing to do with the addition.The answer is for people to stop voting for those who do it this way. If the other guy isn't any better in your judgement then vote for neither. Eventually the lack of support will have its effect. I mean the entire congress is at 20% now.When he campaigns showup with a sign and demand answers to his pork spending.
Well tex all I can say is that if the job description and the rules of the game in DC were changed (written by we the people) I think an honest man would stand a fighting chance. The way things are done in DC right now is dysfunctional and even the best congressman or senator you could name is hobbled by that system. 20% approval rating isn't about specific representatives if you'll look deeper into that poll result. In more detailed polls people are expressing their disgust with the system of congress more than their individual representatives (which are rated far higher than 20%).
I often wonder what would happen if all states added onto their ballot the choice 'none of the above' so that those unhappy or feeling apathetic would have their say too.
Shouldn't an honest politician doing right by his people by not taking the money,
It's a noble thing to do but your constituents tax dollars will go to someone else and there lies the problem. The neighboring district where the legislator goes after these dollars is benefiting while you are not. What we need to do is just eliminate them.
That's chicken and egg theory. The whole point of federal money is being able to accomplish large scale things even if you're a small scale economy at local level. A budget having limits should force them to limit taxation. Having a budget in line with actual needs is more pragmatic, but what incentive is there to not chase pork?
I'm going to use AK as example. How wonderful uncle ted brought home his bridge to nowhere bacon, but when it means another state that had serious problems to address was neglected, I think the ethics are sorely missing. Murthra did the same kind of things with steering committee sweetheart deals for Penn, so this is a non partisan issue.
By and large most people living in states that contribute more but get less back aren't looking at the other states resentfully. I think the real deal is simply this: those that need real problems fixed should be at the head of the line, and not those who sweet talk their way to the first cut with shady deals.
The bottom 10 states (economic, education, whatnot) need a hand up and hopefully cost effective help can be delivered. Eliminating federal taxes would guarantee that the bottom 10 or otherwise lesser economies would never be able to keep pace with modern demands. WV schools might not see computers in classrooms for 100 yrs if we went that route. Your answer causes more problems than it solves, so I'm going to have to disagree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
