Federal Spending for Local Pork

As a new federal budget works its way through the system, we again see the reports of pork-barrel spending by members of the Senate. This is the lovely process where federal tax money is spent on local community pet projects like greenways and public/private museums. Now, like most people, I like museums, and I think greenways are great. I am a big fan of both, and I support both with private donation and local (city, county, and state) taxes. My question is, how in the world does the federal government somehow get involved in paying for these projects?

I'll tell you how (and it seems to be a recurring theme). Once again, we find politicians looking for a way to keep their power. In our great land, power is derived from the people and is retained with votes and money. Unfortunately, the people aren't always that bright, hence the reason that we are a republic and not a pure democracy. But, politicians are politicians, and votes are what they need to stay in power. Pork spending keeps the local constituents and special interests happy, and keeps the money and the votes flowing for a politician.

So, the question is, should a senator serve the interests of its constituency, or should they serve the interests of the nation as a whole. In our current system, the answer is both. That said, I'm not sure how we are ever going to escape the cycle of pork-barrel spending with the mindset of our current electorate. Without a huge libertarian or similar movement, I don't see things changing any time soon. More likely than not, things will get worse before they get better.

Post Election Thoughts

Some random thoughts:

The President has won the election. Now the slogans of "Count every vote!" and "All votes will be counted, and all votes will count" are being followed by more interesting yet equally vapid replacements: "The President should know he doesn't have a mandate", "Now he needs to heal the divide", and "He needs to come to the center". Apparently majority of the popular vote is not a mandate if won by a Republican.

These bromides are being uttered from the Michael Moore Party, whose criticism of everything Bush has been savage. It is assumed the President will have to heal the divide by compromising with those whose talking points reflect Osama Bin Laden's(Michael Moore's reaction to the recent Bin Laden missive was a suggestion that he must have access to a DVD player in his cave and therefore must have seen Fahrenheit 9/11.) How about some healing from the Democratic Party?

I have always thought that the best legislative/executive balance of power in this country comes from a situation whereby the White House's occupant belongs to a different party than the majority of Congress, thereby pushing legislation to the center of the political spectrum. Ironically, when a majority, the republicans tend to spend like a drunken sailor, seemingly following the adage that in order to beat a democrat, you must outspend him. It seems the entitlement mind set of the populace abhors a vacuum even in Congress, whose members rush to spend taxpayers' money in efforts to appease the masses. Barry Goldwater is turning in his grave.

The Left cries about four more years of the "religious right" controlling this country, but the evidence is scant and the noise rings hollow; an amendment to ban gay marriage is highly unlikely, as is a ban on abortion. Are they referring to anything else? Unlikely. These are the same people who bend over backwards to explain away the intolerance of Islam, and it is small wonder that Islamic followers have gravitated towards the left. But, to paraphrase Mark Steyn, it must be strange for those who favor gay marriage to share the same party with those who would like to bury them alive.

John Kerry lost, but in a greater sense, it was the Anti-Bush who lost. The Senator's approval ratings were extremely low even among his own followers, who seemed to cast their lot with him because his greatest recommendation was that He Isn't Bush. It isn't surprising that an echo chamber didn't win the election, regardless of the slimness of the margin.

Which brings us to the next point. Even with all the failings of John Kerry and John Edwards, with all the bitter tripe flowing from their campaign, they still came close to winning. This country is changing for the worse, its citizens have forgotten what it is to be American. The decadence of the citizenry will be responsible for the eventual destruction of this country. Pause and consider the fact that we started a revolution against a government which was much less pervasive than what we have today. The slow creep of government growth will eventually remove all individual responsibility. The nightmare of Socialism is that everyone is responsible for everyone else, and no one is responsible for themselves. The Left leads the charge, whose continued pursuit of forcing people to do Good Things with other peoples' money necessarily involves strengthening the power of the government over the individual. With all of their press that they are the party of conscience, the party of civil liberty, it is a sad fact that they will be responsible for the erosion of individual rights, not some Patriot Act. Ask yourself if the FCC or the IRS are constitutional.

The Libertarians have fared better than Nader this time around. However, as Neal Boortz muses, "I wonder how the Libertarians would have done if their candidate was willing to protect America from Islamic terrorists?" Good question. Maybe they should analyze some planks in the platform; I see many gaps to the sea below.

Either You're in the Handbasket, or You're Not.

It's Election Day, and we as Americans have a choice. It's not simply a choice between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry; it's more of a choice between right and wrong. Of course, I'm inclined to say a choice between good and evil, but I feel the former comparison is more accurate. In fact I don't even find Kerry that "evil", he is just a slightly more liberal version of Bush, and conversely, Bush a slightly more conservative version of Kerry, domestically of course. The difference is how they will handle our national security, and the global war on terror. Bush has proven himself over the past three years by doing something right. He has prevented another domestic terrorist attack and for that we should all be grateful. Those of us wishing for more of the same will vote for Bush, those that are willing to walk the long, cold road of appeasement for an evanescent sense of security will go Kerry's way. That is what is so vexing about this election. With all of the anti-Bush vitriol spewing out of Kerry's Greenwich Village myrmidons, somehow they fail to realize that their man has made no distinction from Bush as to how he will protect us more effectively.

Even with Bin Laden's timely video release, a vignette even Alan Smithee would denounce, there still seems to be some confusion for whom to vote. Despite a luke-warm message by the perpetrator of the Sept. 11th massacre, the people of this country are still willing to pour into voting booths today and pull the lever for John F. Kerry, because they feel he is the man for the job. Never mind his soft approach to national defense and intelligence during his 20 years in the Senate, and just disregard his irrational pandering of important wartime matters since the primaries. And please, oh please, excuse his inane comments about the Vietnam War, upon his return. After all Kerry has a "plan" to right all of the wrongs of the current administration. So let's all tell our enemies that we have a shelf life for commitment and revenge in this country that is 1117 days. After all, that is what it has taken us to move on and forget the worst day our country has ever endured. Will November 2nd be a victory for us or for them?