[Overpaid Slacker]

Jon - if you've read the link, it purports to demonstrate those Representatives that want these allocations, these hidden costs that piggyback other legistation, to be brought into the sunlight.

I'm not saying that our elected officials shouldn't represent their constituencies, at all. In fact, they should.

BUT if Representative X from State Y (not my state) tags a $50 million appropriation for, let's just say a highway and bridge to an island in the Great State of Y with a total population of 36 (to pick a ridiculous, but realistic example out of thin air) onto a $5 billion defense bill,
(1) there's no discussion of whether the FEDERAL government should be funding this unnecessary bridge;
(2) there's no way to pull that unnecessary appropriation out of the defense bill;
(3) the Pres has no line-item veto to kill it; and
(4) given all 3 above, the entire democratic process of debate and judging programs on their merits has been circumvented!

Now, I'm supposed to say "that's OK" because, every once in a while (about 1/435th of the time) I get some benefit at *everybody else's expense*?

Tell me you're not seriously saying that you don't care that some diametrically politically opposed ********* that is unanswerable to you can spend your money on an otherwise unnecessary pet project for the sole purpose of their re-election! Gaaaah! This pi$$es me off!

As I said earlier, if you have a pet project, bring it to the floor. Propose it, and argue it and make it stand (or fall) on its merits. If that means that fewer bridges get built to nowhere, or a statue to some pinhead isn't erected in the Bronx, or Banning, CA doesn't get a FEDERALLY-funded swimming pool, or Kentucky tourism doesn't get $1 million FEDERAL dollars to promote tourism, or hydroponic tomato production in Ohio doesn't get $180,000 of FEDERAL money, or $229,000 of FEDERAL money doesn't go to dairy education in Iowa... then so freaking be it.

If it means there's less spending (and therefore taxing...) of FEDERAL dollars, then so freaking be it. Please let it so freaking be.

And if Iowans really, really need $229,000 for dairy education, then Iowans can freaking pay for it themselves.

Otherwise, if I know I only have to, indirectly, pony up a fraction of the money needed to indulge any little fantasy I have... I'm just going to keep coming up with more and more indulgent fantasies that you and everybody else pays for.

I want a Carrera GT. No, make it 3 Carrera GTs. I've got my $1.03 ready, now you guys come up with the other $649,998.97 to pay for these cars that none of you will enjoy. Cool! Thanks! I'll be back next week with a demand for my own battleship! I'll even put a pool on it for the poor, poor residents of Banning, CA.

"Well, having your own battleship is ridiculous," you say? No you don't, because you never had a chance to. And, by the time you find out you've bought it, TOO LATE!!! I've got my battleship. You can pay for the fuel, too, as a matter of fact. That appropriation was tacked to a "Save the Wetlands" bill. Ain't I sneaky?

JP