Because we live in a representative republic. Look, this can all be laid on the back of partisan politics. If it’s good for the ‘whole’ of the country (which the healthcare bill was clearly not) then the ‘whole’ of the country will support it and provide enough pressure on these partisan hacks to sign the damn thing. Just because YOU think its a good thing for the country doesn’t mean that everyone else does.
In the nature of law building, if the bill won’t fly then let it doe or fix it to be better, more comprehensive so that everyone WILL approve. Giving some kickbacks (which if you think about it, is reprehensible in a business deal) to get what you want passed is a shitty way to govern.
No, it has nothing to do with partisan politics. If you recall, the Cornhusker Kickback was sought by a Democratic Senator in a Democratic Congress under a Democratic President. The Bridge to Nowhere was sought by a Republican congressman in a Republican Congress under a Republican President.
You seem to think that because we live in a representative republic, our elected leaders are chosen on the basis of doing right for the whole country, even if it isn’t good for one’s own district or constituency. You’ve got it exactly backwards.
Politicians are the elected voices of their district to make sure that the people of a particular district or state can have their concerns heard at the national level. If we wanted a system of government that covered-up local concerns so that all issues were dealt with as national issues, we’d get rid of single-member districts and have national elections for a parliament, or something like that.
Er… cite?
Not really, what I am meaning to say is that if a State needs something specific then the State needs to legislate it. If it’s a Federal Law then that Federal Law needs to have equality across State lines.
If the earmarks are being asked as a kickback in order to sign something they are already going to sign, it’s a waste of money. If the kickback is being offered as a means to bribe that vote then it should be criminal.
I’m sure this has already been cited, numerous times but here it is again:
If the earmark is benefiting a congresscritter directly, it is criminal.
ETA: “Good for the country” and “popular” aren’t the same thing. In fact, they’re not even related to one another.
That may be a noble position to take, but it isn’t law, and nobody is bound to agree with that. Obviously federal programs do not impact all states equally – some states benefit more from military spending, others from transportation spending. Some states are net tax donors, others are net tax recipients. The highway bills that are passed every five years or so lay out what infrastructure projects are a priority, and some states win, others lose.
Like was just said, if a congressman benefits personally, then it is a bribe. If it benefits the people of an area generally, it is called doing a good job looking out for the people who elected you.
And let’s be clear here: people WANT their politicians to look out for their concerns. This poll says 53% of people want politicians to bring home the pork, only 12% said they’d be less likely to vote for someone who gets government money for their district.
Almost forgot – should I link to some polls that show how popular the Iraq war was when it started? Does such a poll make that mistake of a war good for our country?
Health insurance I would argue is good for the country (even if it is kinda of a hijack of this thread). The health insurance companies are in the process of bungling the health insurance industry just as the big banks and Wall Street bungled the finance industry a couple of years ago. They are trying to maximize profits by creating filters to keep sick people out of their risk pools (which is what ‘pre-existing condition’ is all about) and “solving” economic problems with endless series of steep rate hikes. The current bill saves them from themselves though it did not take the obvious and logical step of instituting single payer. It will ameliorate a lot of human suffering over the next few years, but has to be amended to address containing health care costs in the US before it really does what it should.
Because if it was very good, one senators vote wouldn’t have been needed enough to buy him off with pork. There would have been plenty of support to pass the thing without him.
Personally, I think it’s possible to acknowledge that cutting earmarks isn’t going to magically balance the budget, save the world as we know it, cure cancer or anything else like that. However, it will reduce spending that isn’t good policy. So just because it doesn’t solve the entire deficit issue doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
Let me put it this way, does MSNBC support the government spending 16 billion dollars on projects that have little merit other than buying a few votes for a politician?
I have read that Earmarks make up about half a percent of the Federal budget, but that some of them are for dollars already appropriated and which will be spent anyway. Does anyone have figures on the actual savings from that half percent?
To my eye, that is a poll, not a cite on healthcare reform being bad for the nation.
This article claims that the healthcare reform bill is good for the insurance industry, which I guess makes it bad for the country as a whole :rolleyes:
Cite?
That’s specious reasoning, especially after I have just eloquently explained that “good” and “popular” are not synonyms.
Let me put this a different way: if cutting the deficit is a good thing, why hasn’t it been done already, with overwhelming support? Conclusion: if a proposal to cut the deficit is not overwhelmingly popular, then we shouldn’t try to cut the deficit.
That’s pretty much the logic you are using.
So it is your stance that the healthcare bill is a good thing for the country, gotcha. Can you provide me a cite for that?
I have offered up the opinions of thousands of people (a majority in fact) that feel differently, are they all wrong too?
This really suggests you have some huge misconceptions about how to reason.
You really think popularity is a measure of how good something is?
Even when there was a protracted campaign of demonization of that thing by outright partisan liars?
If I were you my face would be red and I’d feel humiliated for even suggesting that.
Let’s poll people and ask them if they would like to see the deficit cut? What do you think the answer will be?
You are skewing the reactions from the general public in how you ask the question.
If you ask people if they would like to see a better health care plan in place, you will get an overwhelming response of yes. The same about the deficit.
But the proof is in the pudding and the debate will rage forever about the ‘how’ to do both.
Popularity is the only measure we have. Again, we are talking about a representative republic here.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
My cite is actually based on facts and reality. Unlike your cite which is based on some kind of weird voodoo magic that you think controls reality.
Or, you know, you could use the science of economics to project as well as we can the effects.
If you’d rather allow childish popularity games to color your view of policy decisions that doesn’t speak well for your opinions on other matters.
A law’s popularity and its political support aren’t related to whether or not the law is good or necessary. They’re not remotely the same.