Talk:United States Senate

Are the two bodies of Congress in the U.S. really upper and lower? I didn't think there was such a distinction. Kingturtle 03:51 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

There isn't, but I had an unrelated question. How are committees named? Their official names are like, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, but many people say, Senate Appropriations Committee, or something similar... neither has a page... ugen64 00:15, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Committees

I have begun work on creating pages for the standing Senate committees. I am using the full name, as in U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. I am using these names because that's how they are named in the Senate Rules, and because that's how they were linked on the Senate page.

It's been difficult finding histories of the various committees, so the work has been slow. I've been trying to include a brief history, the committee jurisdiction, and the current sitting members (including chairman and ranking Dem.) I've also included the subcommittees (even harder to find information on) and their chairs and ranking Dems. The two I linked above are the only ones I've done so far; the Appropriations committee has been started by someone else and I haven't looked at it yet. I'm working on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs now.

Friedo 17:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Operation

I don't think a filibuster is the most significant element of the Senate's operations; at best this is a procedural oddity with some real political effects. Much more important are what it actually does. --Delirium 06:14, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Political Color Coding?

On the article for the US Senate Republicans are represented by red and Democrats by Blue. At the last presidential election, the map states being changed as votes came in shown on News bulletins followed this convention on some networks, but on others GOP was blue and Democrats were Red. The latter were predominantly BBC, SKY i.e. British whereas FOX and I think CNN i.e. Ameirican followed the former convention. In Britain Blue and Red are synonomous with Conservative and Labour; or right and left so perhaps that is the reason this method was used instead. Whilst as a non American I am likely to assume that Red for GOP and Blue for Dems is correct IS IT? or were the NEWS channels just selecting one colour for each for the sake of illustration which could just as easily been stripes and polkadots? Dainamo 15:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in U.S. red for Republicans and blue for Democrats has become traditional. Accordingly, the center of the country is often called the "red states". No idea why nor when this was first adopted. Do we have an article discussing that? -- Jmabel 17:03, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

There's Red state and Blue state, but I'm not sure they discuss the origin. Talk to an older political junkie than me. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:02, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Goes back to the 19th century I beleive Smith03 18:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that. My personal recollection is that the red state/blue state stuff started fairly recently. (I had originally said "the 1980s" but see below Dpbsmith 20:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)). In particular, the colors used are always a sort of pastel salmon red and deep sky blue, whereas traditional campaign color schemes of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s always used the brightest of primary colors... Also, during the 1950s and early 1960s I can't imagine that any political party would have allowed itself to be associated with any shade of red or pink. (That's no joke, I'm not kidding. Those were the days when schools stopped using the term "social studies" because even the word "social" seemed dangerous). Dpbsmith 19:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[[1]] well you better edit this page if you doubt what I said Smith03 02:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google Groups search on "red state" "blue state" , sorted in chronological order, from 12 May 1981 through 25 July 2001—that is, all USENET posting containing both of the exact phrases "red state" and "blue state" shows 9 hits total. Two irrelevant hits in 1995 and 1999. First one in sense of "Republican" and "Democrat" is Nov. 23, 2000. Searching from 25 July 2001 through today, in contrast, yields 238 hits. Here's a link to the search: [2] Dpbsmith 20:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Dpbsmith. I have a recollection of seeing television coverage at least one pre-2000 election in which the states carried by the Democrat were red and the Republican wins were blue. Although I can't state the year with certainty, it sticks in mind because, as a Democrat, I remember feeling upset at an apparent bow to the Republicans' linking Jefferson's party to Communism. I think it would be more accurate to say that colors were used rather indiscriminately before 2000, but that the closeness and sharp polarization of the 2000 election resulted in extensive discussion of the state-by-state division, with the result that red for Republicans and blue for Democrats seems to have become entrenched in the popular usage. The TV networks have always used different colors as an easy and obvious way to show state-by-state wins, but I don't think I ever heard the terms "red states" and "blue states" used before 2000. By the way, in New York, candidate petitions are pink for the Republicans and pastel green for the Democrats, and have been since well before 2000. JamesMLane 19:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In general, I'd suggest avoid using colors that may needlessly confuse an international audience, but the cited use is a graph with a clear legend indicating its color codes without implying any meaning beyond the graph. It's fine by graph standards. While it may be a bit disconcerting on first glance to a UK audience, it's not ambiguous or misleading, unless someone looking for a fight in this heated political year wants to infer something about using red for Republicans. (Sure, many Communist parties and countries favor it, but so do we in the U.S. — as one of our three patriotic colors. Besides, as an independent, I'd have better grounds to complain about having my non-affliation coded in yellow. ☺) -- Jeff Q 23:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jeff, as I asked the orginal question, let me clarify that there was no confusion from a clearly labeled table or map. I was just interested in the correct form according to tradition. If we are discussing a particular country, the best policy is to use their chosen designation. In the same fashion I would address a Lieutenant in the US Army "Lou-tenant" amd one in a Commonwealth country "Lef-tenant" thus adopting what is appropriate in the particular situation. Dainamo

• In the '70s and '80s, the predominant practice was to show the Republicans are blue and the Democrats as red -- following the European tradition that the party of the Left got the color of Revolution. My first memory of the Republicans assigned red is no earlier than the 2000 election, and I recall it seemed at that time counter-intuitive and contrary to tradition. It seemed wrong. But I assume that as "Liberal" went from a term of pride to a term of opprobrium in the '80s, the connotations of Red (especially in a country that, unlike Europe, doesn't generally make much distinction between "socialist" and "communist") were such it seemed to some news organizations to be unfair to always assign that color to the Democratic Party. Given the extreme polarization during and even more so since, the 2000 elections, the (counter-intuitive) terms "red state" and "blue state" are firmly entrenched in the Zeitgeist, yet another point of similarity at which the U.S. will differ from out English-speaking relatives. -- orthogonal 12:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Represenatation

Is there anyone else out there who thinks it's unfair that every state gets two Senators? Aren't some people getting disproportionate influence? Aren't "one man, one vote" and "equality under law" important principles of democracy?

Ahh, you speak of the great compromise made during the Constitutional Convention. More populous, Southern states wanted representation based on population; less populous, Northern states wanted equal representation, for obvious reasons. The compromise was that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (US Constitution I.2) The Fourteenth Amendment would of course remove the clause about slaves counting as 3/5s of a person when distributing representatives, and therefore electors in a presidential election. Laguna72 19:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Senate was originally intended to represent the states — this is why the state legislatures originally chose their Senators. - jredmond 19:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since the 17th Amendment, Senators have represented the inhabitants of states, not state governments. Since Senators currently represent people, it seems that one justification for an equal suffrage Senate has been lost. (Hamilton called states "artificial entities")

Since Senators are now elected just like Congressmen, it seems doubtful than anyone can claim that Senators are inherently wiser than Congressmen either. If Senators do consider wider interests than Congressmen, it would seem the reasons for that are that Senators represent larger and more diverse districts than Congressmen and have six year terms.User:Dinopup

The 17th Amendment did not diminish the justification for states' equal suffrage in the Senate. A "state" is an organized body of people within a definite territory, not merely its legislature; it is the sovereign rights of each state, not merely its legislature, that the principle of state equality is meant to protect and upon which equal Senate suffrage rests. How senators are chosen is irrelevant insofar as equal suffrage is concerned.

That is not to say that the 17th Amendment did not strike a dissonant constitutional chord. By replacing indirect election with direct representation for the sake of "progressive" populism, the Amendment worked a partial excision of the constitutional provisions designed to protect individual rights from popular rule. The way to restore harmony is not, I submit, to complete the excision, but to reverse it, as Georgia Senator Zell Miller has proposed by calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.Pgva 07:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"that the principle of state equality is meant to protect and upon which equal Senate suffrage rests. How senators are chosen is irrelevant insofar as equal suffrage is concerned."

To me, it's ridiculous to treat states with 600,000 people the same as states with 35 million. The notion that the states are equal is absurd. Why should a person get the equivalent of 17 more votes by moving across Lake Tahoe from California to Nevada? Or the equilalent of 19 more votes by moving from Pennsylvania to Delaware?

The Senate treats the citizens of some states as "more equal" than the citizens of others. That's unjust.

Which constitutional principle applies in making that judgment? Were I to apply the principle of "one man, one vote", I would agree. But that principle manifestly does not apply, as I explained here.

My conclusion is informed by the understanding that the "will of the majority" does not convey legitimacy on an otherwise unjust exercise of power. The houses of Congress do not grant such a license; they protect their constituencies from arbitrary government power. The House protects persons, the Senate protects states from government. Additional protections do not offend the principle, unless you believe that majority will in itself legitimizes unlimited government of all kinds. Those who prefer limited constitutional government require "one man, one vote" (in the House), but are happy to admit complimentary principles to further limit government and thereby protect freedom.Pgva 17:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

“The House protects persons, the Senate protects states from government.”

But states per se are almost never affected by the legislation that comes out of Congress. Nearly all legislation affects persons, corporations, unions, etc.

Of course the legislation usually does not regulate state governments, what it regulates are the states' traditional objects of legislation. When Congress usurps legislative powers that constitutionally belong to the states, states most certainly are affected, as the universe of legislation that is theirs alone to vary in accordance with the will of their people shrinks. The Senate gives the people, as states, a marginal advantage in saying "no" to such usurpations. So, for instance, if the House were to pass a law outlawing firearms within one hundred feet of a school, the Senate, recognizing that such a law is nowhere authorized by the constitution, would have a marginal incentive to reject it, assuming that the question was sufficiently close (as I conceded, tools to protect liberty work at the margins only). And thus: Massachussetts can have gun-free school zones if it wants, Texas is free not to, U.S. citizens can freely choose their state of residence, and voila, liberty and the proper balance of state-federal power are preserved another day.

There are a few cases when legislation does affect states – state grant formulas and appropriations. In those instances, small states have an enormous undue advantage. Numerous studies have shown that small states get more pork barrel appropriations than large states. Small states have insisted that block grant formulas favor them.

In other words, popular attempts at wealth redistribution. It is comforting to know that, even today, our Madisonian system resists such attempts, distorting the formulas and putting the brakes on the socialist enterprise. That a system conceived in liberty, not socialism, is an imperfect wealth redistributor should come as no surprise and ought to be celebrated by freedom-loving citizens everywhere. The solution, I suggest, is not to perfect the mechanisms of redistribution but to stop putting the system to a use for which it was not designed.

“I’m not at all sure why the Senate “always wins” since the constitution gives equal power to the House and Senate on spending matters (maybe the House needs more backbone?)”

What the Senate wins on is block grant budget formulas. With most block grants, every states is guaranteed a certain minimum, regardless of size or need. House members don’t have an incentive to fight Senators on unfair block grant formulas because House constituents care less about abstract budgeting methods than they do pork. Also, House members are always up for reelection, Senators every sixth year, so sometimes Senators win on funding disputes because they have the luxury of time. The incentives might seem subtle, but Oppenheimer and Lee demonstrate that when there is a dispute between the House and the Senate on a budget formula, the Senate almost always wins.

I can accept this explanation without concluding that there is anything wrong with the constitution, especially since the House and Senate have equal power over spending matters, meaning that any perceived inequities are merely realpolitik. That House constituents care less about "abstract budgeting methods" than "pork" is certainly their prerogative, and if their representatives concede political territory in conference committee, then that is their choice.

“My conclusion is informed by the understanding that the "will of the majority" does not convey legitimacy on an otherwise unjust exercise of power. The houses of Congress do not grant such a license; they protect their constituencies from arbitrary government power. The House protects persons, the Senate protects states from government. Additional protections do not offend the principle, unless you believe that majority will in itself legitimizes unlimited government of all kinds.”

Almost no one believes that something that the majority supports is automatically good, but with the Senate, not all minorities are equally protected. If you wanted a legislative body to protect all minorities equally, you would want a “one man, one vote” legislature, but require it to have a 60% majority to pass something.

As I indicated previously, the Senate is majoritarian in character (majority of states rather than persons). The Senate protects state majorities from federal usurpation, just as the House protects majorities of persons. Minority rights are protected (at the margins) by balancing the houses against one another and with the aid of the president's veto, the courts' powers of judicial review, federalism enabling citizens to choose their state of residence and vary local policies accordingly (rather than having national uniformity), and so forth. Minority rights are realized in these checks and balances. The difference with the 60% rule (not to besmirch the idea) is that the checks and balances have independent justifications that help preserve their place in the constitutional design, e.g. the Senate protecting states' rights, the president defending his executive prerogatives, the courts upholding the rule of law.

Here are a few minorities which the Senate hasn't historically protected. The tens of millions of Americans who live in cities, Americans who are non-white, Americans who work in manufacturing. Those are some pretty large groups.

Of course I meant protected from government, and to the extent that population-based apportionment is needed to negate legislation, the House does that.

Since the 1960's State Senates have been apportioned according to population. Has this resulted in a tyranny of the majority?

Certainly it has, to the extent that the two houses agree more often and pass more laws restricting freedom.Pgva 17:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pgva, You seem to be saying that you favor the Senate because believe liberty is protected by legislative inaction. To me, that seems more like an argument for bicameralism than an equal suffrage Senate.

"other words, popular attempts at wealth redistribution. It is comforting to know that, even today, our Madisonian system resists such attempts, distorting the formulas and putting the brakes on the socialist enterprise."

BUT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE! Powerful Senators have done hundreds of things to redistribute wealth and create all kinds of socialistic federal programs.

What do you call it when Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) use their perches on the Appropriations committee to take home billions of dollars in unneeded projects to their home states? What do you call it when Trent Lott has the navy buy ships it doesn't need because the ships would be made in his home state?! Isn't that a redistribution of income from the wealthier regions of the country to the poorer?

The TVA was more the product of powerful upper-South Senators than Franklin Roosevelt. Is the TVA not "socialist"?

What do you call farm subsidies? The Democrats pushed the farm subsidy expansion bill through the Senate in 2002 because they wanted to save Tim Johnson's South Dakota Senate seat (many farm state Republicans voted for the bill as well). The Republicans pushed the bill through the House because they wanted that Senate seat too, and weren't going to let overrepresented farmers like the Democrats more.

You contradict your own argument when you say "In other words, popular attempts at wealth redistribution

The biggest aspect of block grants that is redistributional is that every state gets a minimum, no matter its size. Thus, block grants favor small states. If you don't like wealth redistribution, you _shouldn't_ like an equal apportionment Senate. What small state Senators want is worse than big government, it's big government taht disproportionately benefits them.

Blocking legislation you don't like isn't a reason to favor an equal apportionment Senate. What would you think if rural people disproportionately favored big government? (er, which they do)

If you don't like big government, then you should be pretty mad at what the Senate did to George W. Bush's tax cuts. The Senate trimmed a couple hundred million off of both of them. Who were the two Republican hold out Senators on the 2001 tax cuts? Jeffords and Chafee, both representatives of pretty tiny states.

If the Senate were apportioned by population you would still see pork, but you wouldn't see certain states vastly privileged over others. Have you been to NYC? They have wanted to build an East Side subway for sixty years, but have never been able to get the money from Washington to do it, even though they send 10 bil more to DC than they get back. The only East Side subway NYC has now is incredibly crowded, a second East Side line would be used by millions of people, and wouldn't be considered "pork" by most people at all.

You have said many things about state equality, but there is nothing rational about how state lines have been drawn. If you were going to divide the USA into fifty sub-units, would you ever make the metropolitan area of Providence a sub-unit equal to half the West Coast?

"If the Senate were apportioned by population you would still see pork, but you wouldn't see certain states vastly privileged over others."

The real problem is not the Senate, it is that the socialist ("pork-barrel") mindset turns the very concept of liberty upside down. "Freedom" becomes freedom to steal from one's neighbors. It's laughable that we are debating whether the Senate enables "equitable" stealing, because of course there is no such thing. Were we to practice genuine liberty in this country, where each individual produces for himself, engages in private enterprise and does not rely on the government's monopoly on force (intended to protect, not abrogate, individual rights) to expropriate from others, the small states' Senate advantage would not be so onerous and immoral a burden as you describe. To coin a phrase, everything gets mixed up when you try to practice socialism. Now, we could try to rearrange individual pieces of our system, which would take us still further from our founding ideal; or, we could set to work to restore the liberty that is properly ours. Forget about the Senate's marginal impact; focus on changing the overwhelming consensus favoring big government, against which no free republic will long survive.Pgva 20:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"You have said many things about state equality, but there is nothing rational about how state lines have been drawn. If you were going to divide the USA into fifty sub-units, would you ever make the metropolitan area of Providence a sub-unit equal to half the West Coast?"

Why not? Many of the original states were created by religious minorities uphappy with the policies of their governments. They left and formed distinct societies (not "sub-units") in which they would be free to practice their religion and pursue their values as they saw fit. No one has ever suggested that to do so they required an equal number of persons. Rhode Island is one such example.

Today, people are still free to relocate to states more conducive to their happiness. That is why preserving states' rights matters. The more areas of policy that are dictated by the federal government nationwide, the less free all of us are (to escape from tyranny to other jurisdictions). This is crucially important to real liberty. Why did the New Deal have to be a national policy? Because socialism fails when people are free to escape it (actually, it fails anyway, but it fails faster when people are free to escape). Witness the exodus from California. Witness Germany's Berlin Wall, that was designed to keep people in.

Even so, one could argue that the state divisions of yesteryear are obsolete. The constitution has a ready answer. States lines may be redrawn with the consent of the affected legislatures and Congress.Pgva 20:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"What small state Senators want is worse than big government, it's big government that disproportionately benefits them."

I at first struggled to understand this disproportionality-of-benefits objection. After all, what are "proportional benefits", anyway? Nowhere does the constitution say that "appropriations shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers". If this had been a preeminent value to the founders, surely they would have said so.

When I considered the objection from the modern welfare state point of view, however, the objection did make some sense. For if the issue is pork-barrel handouts, then disproportionate distribution is cause for complaint, but disproportionate to what? Why not require proportionality of benefits to individual income taxes paid, rather than the equal per capita distribution that the demand for a population-apportioned Senate implies? Could it be that the proportional benefits objection, far from being an objection to socialism, is a cover for a redistributionist social justice idea that taxes the rich exclusively while demanding equal benefits for rich and poor alike, that that is the root cause of complaint against equal Senate suffrage?

Of course this cannot be right. "Proportionality" is simply not a reasonable standard for necessary federal spending. Only in an illegitimate federal welfare state could this consideration be deemed proper. The solution, once again, is not to perfect the welfare state, but to eliminate it.Pgva 03:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even if maldistributed appropriations aren't literally unconstitutional, that doesn't mean that maldistributed benefits aren't unfair, or even contrary to the unwritten intent of the Constitution. All the major Founding Fathers actually opposed an equal suffrage Senate anyway. As you alluded to, the Framers of the Constitution never imagined that a welfare state would emerge. Certainly the Framers wouldn't have wanted a state support itself by skimming off other states.

Personally, I'm less bothered by the "welfare state," (Soc Security Medicare are ok IMO), than I am by the "subsidy state." Since Senators are disproportionately from rural areas, and rural areas are the biggest subsidy grabbers of all, the Senate does constribute to the subsidy mess that we see in Washington.

Since your opposition to big government drove your support of an equal suffrage Senate, I tried to show that the Senate actually encourages _more_ big government, not less. I agree with you that it would be nice if states paid for more of their own stuff, especially infrastructure. But try convincing a Hawaii, Wyoming, or South Dakota congressman to believe that.

(in Sizing Up the Senate, Oppenheimer and Lee demonstrate in many ways that small state Senators pull down more pork, subsides, quotas than what is their fair share).

I didn't care about the equal Suffrage Senate until two years ago. I find it indefensible that counter terrorism money is distributed through a system that leaves the most endangered places (NYC, Chicago, LA) with less money than places that face no risk at all (Wyoming). We probably wouldn't have that unfair formula if it weren't for the disproportionate power of small state pols.

You can take comfort from the fact that the equal suffrage Senate can never be changed. Article V in the Constitution makes an amendment to change the Senate basically unconstitutional. Perhaps in a few decades we will see fission movements in the larger states. There are people in northern California who want a separate state; Norman Mailer ran for mayor of NYC on a platform of making New York "the fifty-first state." (alas, Albany would never allow their cash cow to go free)

I agree that leaving major cities underprotected from terrorism is indefensible. Without examining the specific appropriations, I will assume that you are correct in focusing on the state distribution of counterterrorism monies and that cities are indeed underprotected, and that our small state senators are chiefly responsible for this underprotection. Since counterterrorism is obviously a legitimate federal enterprise, I will concede that the issue (properly understood) is not one of illegitimate big government but legitimate national defense, and that it is sometimes proper for the federal government to enlist the help of the states and localities through federal grants for that purpose.

The proportionality, therefore, is proportionality on the basis of genuine need as determined by the relative threat of terrorism to given areas. It is not simply a per capita proportionality, which might itself work a malappropriation in the context of terrorism (indeed, the cities you mention probably deserve much more than per capita dollars). However, since per capita would be a lesser malappropriation than the one resulting from treating all states as equally threatened, you have identified Senate apportionment as the culprit. I will argue that this is not correct, and that the real problem is the widespread "handout" mentality at the voting booth.

Our founders apparently presumed that in matters of common national interest such as war, our senators would, in their select wisdom, rise above their parochial interests to consider the nation as a whole; that in so doing, they would consider the complex factors that determine genuine threat and appropriate monies accordingly; that they would, opposite a popularly-elected House that (perhaps) did misappropriate monies for the sake of per capita pork, make necessary revisions to best protect the nation. What is missing in today's scenario is not per capita Senate apportionment, but an ability to rise above parochial interests and do what is right for the country as a whole. The 17th Amendment may be partly to blame, but indirect election was only a marginal buffer of popular will. Far more important is the handout mentality that so totally pervades our culture as to render our national Senate an embarrassment.

Remember when Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura appointed Dean Barkley to fill the Senate seat vacated by the late Senator Paul Wellstone? His one instruction to Barkley was to bring back as many federal dollars as possible. I was shocked, because we rarely see our culture's shameful proclivity for grabbing handouts stated so openly and positively. Yet what Ventura said then is also stated silently by most of us when we enter the voting booth. That is where the problem lies, for if our primary concern is "what can I get from the government", then we have truly ceased to be "one nation", and the best that the citizens of our cities can do is to fend for themselves. I view all federal welfare and subsidy programs as being the product of the same psychological impulse, and thus all problematic.

The solution lies with you and I and the citizens of this country. When the time comes that we cease voting for candidates who will bring back the most pork, our federal councils will have a chance to function rationally. We should demand that our Senators appropriate money, not proportionately per capita, but rationally per the actual threat.

It may take time for our culture to adjust. In an age of terrorism, pork-as-usual must give way to the genuinely common good. Yet when such a widespread consensus does occur, our politicians will have no choice but to respond to the popular will. It is far better that we direct our attention to where the problem actually lies, rather than attacking the straw man of Senate apportionment.Pgva 18:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pgva,

I'm not sure if we'll ever get past subsidy and pork grubbing with the system we currently have. I personally vote for the candidate with whom I agree on the national issues, but even if I wanted to vote against pork, for whom would I vote? Pork politics is absolutely bipartisan. My two Senators (Corzine & Lautenberg) really aren't known for pork or subsidy grabbing either (even if they do favor the welfare state). What can I do to weaken Byrd or Stevens?

Also, let's say that I could vote for a candidate who was against subsidies and who was against pork, why good would it do for my district/state to unilaterally stop seeking pork while other districts/states stay at the trough?

It would be nice if the president took a stand against pork, but no president is realistically going to do that, since pork helps a president pass legislation. Clinton got NAFTA through the House by making all kinds of special infrastructure promises.

Maybe a line item veto would be a good idea? (but even if we had a line item veto, a pres isn’t going to use it to fight the projects of powerful legislators)

I never knew that about Ventura and Dean Barkley. I had thought those two were good people.

I don't think you'll agree with me on this, but I wish we had a system of voting which would allow more than two parties to emerge. The reason we don’t have viable alternative parties isn’t lack of ballot access, lack of media coverage, or even lack of money, it’s our geographic based first past the post voting system.

If we had a proportional representation voting system that represented ideas, rather than geography, you would see less pork. Let’s say that legislators were elected from party lists (like most countries in Europe), and not from single member districts. Congressmen would no longer have an incentive for pork barrel politics at all, and could vote for the national interest, rather than what they perceive as their district’s interest.

I would not want to do away with all geographic representation, the systems used by Germany and New Zealand seem close to ideal to me.

A question . . . why is it that so many Americans revere the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, but hate current politicians and how Washington works? If you look at polls, Americans rate Congressmen on the same level as used car salesmen. America has by far the lowest voter turnout in the democratic world.

"It may take time for our culture to adjust. In an age of terrorism, pork-as-usual must give way to the genuinely common good."

Let's hope so. Tom DeLay just called for a more intelligent distribution of counterterrorism money. Unfortunately, the Senate just voted down an amendment to do just that!

Book Recommendation

For everyone interested in the Senate, I recommend "Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation" by Frances Lee and Bruce Oppenheimer. User:Dinopup