Posted on 10/25/2005 11:37:35 PM PDT by RWR8189
What Congress did is disgusting. You heard what the Senate did to Tom Coburn's attempt to impose some sanity on spending. How do they live with themselves? Years ago, interviewing economist Walter Williams for a show ABC News called "Greed," I was perplexed when Williams said, "a thief is more moral than a congressman; when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him." That was silly hyperbole, I thought, but watching Congress spend, I see that I was naive and Williams was right. When the Democrats held power, I confronted Sen. Robert Byrd about wasting our money on "Robert Byrd Highway"-type projects in West Virginia. His answer was as arrogant as he was: "I would think that the national media could rise above the temptation of being clever, decrepitarian critics who twaddlize, just as what you're doing right here."
"Twaddlizing?" I asked.
"Trivializing serious matters," he explained.
I persisted, "Is there no limit? Are you not at all embarrassed about how much you got?" Byrd glared at me in silence, and finally demanded, angrily, "Are you embarrassed when you think you're working for the good of the country? Does that embarrass you?"
The Republicans promised to change the culture. Democrats sold panic. "Don't vote for them! They're going to shrink government and take away your favorite programs!" They needn't have worried. The Republicans got elected, but if the Democrats' goal was to expand the government, they were the real winners.
Once Republicans were in power, they started spending money even faster than the Democrats did.
Big spender Ted Stevens responded to Coburn's good suggestion to kill a "Bridge to Nowhere" with a tantrum on the Senate floor: He threatened to resign and "be taken out of here on a stretcher."
Good! Sen. Stevens, please go. I'll even help carry the stretcher.
Unfortunately, Congress has an unwritten code: "Don't threaten the other congressmen's loot." The Senate reprimanded Coburn by voting 82 to 15 to save the Bridge to Nowhere.
The Ketchikan, Alaska, bridge is particularly egregious because it's a bridge to a nearly uninhabited island. Yet it will be monstrous -- higher than the Brooklyn Bridge and almost as long as the Golden Gate. Even some in Ketchikan laugh about it. One told us, "Short view is, I don't see a need for it. The long view ... I still don't see a need for it."
Last week, Alaska's other senator, Lisa Murkowski, said it would be "offensive" not to spend your money on her bridge. When she first became a senator, I asked her if Republicans believed in smaller government. She was unusually candid: "We want smaller government. But, boy, I sure want more highways and more stuff, whatever the stuff is."
I'll say. Alaska's pork projects spanned 67 pages. They get much more than other states. "Oh, you need to come up," she said. "You would realize it's not pork. It's all necessity ... People look at Alaska and say, 'Well, gee, they're getting all this money.' But we still have communities that are not tied in to sewer and water. There are certain basic things that you've got to have."
But my children shouldn't have to pay for them. If people want to live in remote areas of Alaska, why can't they pay for their own sewers and water, through state or local taxes, or better yet, through private businesses? Why should all Americans pay to run sewer lines through the vast, frozen spaces of Alaska? Because Alaska has no money?
Don't believe it. Alaska has so much money, it has no state income tax or sales tax. Instead, it gives its citizens money from something called the Alaska Permanent Fund.
Stevens, Murkowski and Don Young, who once told critics of the Bridge to Nowhere that they could "kiss his ear," are not unique. Republican politicians talk about limited government, but the longer they are in power, the more they vote to spend.
Spending your money, they want "more stuff."
©2005 JFS Productions, Inc. Distributed by Creators Syndicate
Would a drawbridge (and perhaps on modest fee for raising it, paid by the cruise ships) not have been a better and more efficient choice?
Stossel for president.
My cruise ship anchored in the channel and we took the tender boats to the shore...
The problem they have with trying to expand is traffic. The streets are narrow and when we were visiting there was an actual traffic jam... which sucked when coming back from one of our excursions....
Not a veto in sight!!!
So what! I live just outside a metropolitan community of a half a million people and am within a couple of hours of Chicago and Detroit and I live on a well and septic system.
The solution is simple. Vote anti-incumbent. A complete turnover of Congress. And in the election after that? Do it again. Let them know who is in charge.
Never happen, though. Party politics (I just can't vote for the other Party!) will come into play. Not to mention that the actual constituents of these pigs are pleased as punch that the pork is being brought home.
Stossel is as close to balance as we're ever likely to see in the MSM. How he's survived at ABC this long, I don't know.
The veterans are stealing it all.
How many recisions has George W. Bush made? Zero. Vetos? Zero. I don't see the "check and balance," I just see "sure, whatever you guys ask for."
Vote gridlock in 2006.
Well something HAS changed...Since I started writing back a note telling them I wanted a Berlin Wall across our Southern Border before I give another cent, I started getting inquiries/polls as to my outlook on things....from 'Pubbie Type Folks'-- Didn't used to get those..It seems as tho they now 'give a damn.'
Take $3 BILLION to subsidize people with older TV sets so they can get new ones or a converter box for the coming change to digital.
Tell me again why I should vote for republicans?
The stretcher is a good idea -- that will keep the door from hitting his ass on the way out.
Stossel ping.
How fast do you think they can do that?
They COULD do it fast. Just a few motions by the Pres. and the congress on appointments, spending, and energy and they would be in good shape.
I'm guessing you don't live in the permafrost where wells and septic systems actually work.
He's #1 on The Amazing Randi's least annoying list for good reason.
No, the problem they have with trying to expand is not enough dock space. If cruise companies won't come, they will still have the traffic jams as the people driving up there are locals, not tourists. Only problem is, after a while, no one will be able to afford to drive because their economy will tank.
So what's your point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.