Fri 2 Oct, 2009 08:53 am
US Congress people are elected by local voters and I think they are responsible to try to represent the best interests of those voters, so it's not surprising that they try to add special "perks" (Pork) to federal bills to try to get federal money for local interests.
But at some level aren't US Congress people also beholden to their country as a whole to try to do what is right for everyone? Where is the line drawn for them?
How much of a Congress person's responsibilities lie with their local constituencies and how much lies with the national interest (when the two interests may be in conflict)? Is there a mandate in legal form which defines the responsibilities of Congress or is it purely driven by "getting votes" from local supporters?
Congress is more beholden to themselves than constituants or country. Take a good look at health care. They have been bought by political contributions and dont care one bit about the public.
They are more beholden to their party than state of country.
Putting aside for the moment, people's personal gripes about the behavior of congress, I'm wondering if there are any constitutional mandates or statements which define the role of Congress as relates to their obligations to their constituencies or the US as a whole.