ear marks, I approve of them

Even bridges to no where...

I'm saying that even local bridges are expensive. A town cannot afford to bridge a river. A state can, but it's hard. The national government can do it easily. What is refered to as "bringing home the pork" is in many cases getting important local projects completed. Not just bridges but port enhancements, beach renourishment, levy construction, etc. These projects spur economic developement, promote tourism, provide critical protections or sometimes just improve the quality of life. That doesn't mean you can't find examples of "bridges to nowhere", but those examples are the exceptions. Most of these earmark projects address needs in the community.

Some body paid for that exemption... They did not pay for good government in the usual way, with taxes, but gave a contribution somewhere that resulted in an ear mark... The Senate is an outrageous piece of ****, totally un democratic where a state like Alaska that does not have the citizens of some cities in America get two Senators holding equal power with the rest... The house cannot resist them because they are doing their best to be like them, few members representing great numbers, many of whom do not consent to their representation by that individual..

Yes, but you are not relating bridges to earmarks. You can have one without the other. For example, you could have legislation debated and voted on by congress.

Or you can have it as Ted Steven's Bridge to no where... I may be wrong... I thought that was approved as an earmark... That is the bich if the Senate: States do not get more power for more people... It is reatarded for a man to have such power on the basis of real estate... Is he serving people or open space???

modification, all ear marks should be easily available (interent ?) defining the bill, the ear mark details and the person responsible for the ear mark.

I understand that the state of Virginia has a rule that each bill has a title that describes the content, and it allows only one topic per bill. What's wrong with that?

nothing.

Something... Every bill could be put before the people... We have a representative democracy that is less democratic than it was when first formed, and when it was first formed, not one major river in America was bridged... We could not have a direct democracy or anything approaching it then; but what is the excuse today... In the time it takes to watch the news we could vote, and be presented with arguments pro and con, for any subject...There is no reason heatlh care could not have been voted on with several proposals... They do not want to give us the impression we have the right.. It is not their right to deny...

fido wrote "Every bill could be put before the people."

I thought you were too smart to say this. How in hell could it be possible for "the people" to vote on every Bill? Don't take up posting space with ideas you know are impossible.

BBB

Why would you think that?

It isn't impossible. With the internet and/or vote by mail, it could very easily be done, probably much more efficiently and less costly than currently being done by Congress.

You vote on every issue just by getting on site, and doing so; and yet you suggest it is impossible... What is needed is a fool proof means of checking that our votes are being registered, and we do not have that now; so what might be the difference except that now there is no pretense to having a direct democracy...

Let me ask you: What are you afraid of??? Do you have that fear, common to liberals of the common man, and the way his inclinations might take him??? The protections should be built into the system, that no one votes on any issue not directly related to his welfare... If it is not my business, and cannot be said to affect me; for what purpose do I vote??? Because, as I see it, the democracy as we have it gives us only the power to deny ourselves and others rights we do not see the purpose of, and so we have less rights, and rights always under attack, and a people to busy defending its own rights has no ability to protect itself from privilages protected by the government...

We will soon learn to show restraint, and caution in our votes to educate ourselves and vote well if we have the power and know it... A people without the power to impliment its will or to suffer the consequences of their actions can freely advocate any sort of idiocy... The stupidity that now passes for wisdom is only a symptom of the futility that is our lives... Look at the republicans... They say any sort of nonsense to appeal to people without the power to alleviate their own pain, but not a fraction of what they advocate will become law... Their cure is worse than the disease, and so long as the disease persists, they have an issue to get elected with...

The danger is, as was the case in Germany of irrationality given equal footing with reason in the course of government where a madman could make something of it... It was not hitler who crushed the left, but the center, and when the left could not support the center, the right crushed it... The same thing has happened in this country.... There is no left, so now the center seems to be the left...

Go to the head of the class... Republican government from an age where no right shoe was different from any left is a relic of the past... It gives to individuals all the power they need to attract corruption, and gives us no power to resist that corruption... Consider, that those people are supposed to protect our rights and yet, they are forever attacking our rights and leaving it to a reactionary court to protect rights... Still; if a question of honor or legality arises they are the first to hide behind the civil rights they work so hard to deny the people... What is their purpose??? Is it to fight for rights or seek their defense???

They have too much power, and it is our power invested in too few... The Senate is impossibly undemocratic... The house was supposed to be many representing many, and in close contact with the people... It started representing 30K per rep, and now each representative represents over 600 K from highly divided districts- and they persist in calling it democracy... It is not about listening to the people, and helping the people to self govern... It is about denying tot the people a voice in their own affairs..

given what we've seen in Canada of efforts to run national party nomination processes by the internet ... it may be a while before this is feasible (and that's without taking into account the costs and logistics of getting people online - or get them to vote by mail)

I do think it's something that we may see in the future, but it's a project that I don't think U.S. bureaucracy can get organized in any quickly meaningful way

definitely something nice to dream about

Really? You think every one of you could vote on every bill?

If voting on anything were limited to those issues that were likely to affect your well being, there is very little that would require all the voters... It is the parties that make individual and sectional issues the business of the nation... And if we look at how often some place like Alaskan Senator gets to vote on issues that touch them not at all, we can see how open to abuse and corruption government is... What does something that affects only me have to do with them??? You understand; there are states that send many representatives to washington all representing over 600K, and Alaska sends two Senators and one rep without the votes of two hundred K behind any of them... It is undemocratic, and to suggest that we have no choice because it is in the constitution is false... We simply need a new constitution, because those elected with the old will never change anything that reduces their power..

I'm not clear on what you have written, but are you trying to say we only need to vote on those issues that would affect our own well being? I guess if taxpayers are buying a bridge in Kansas, that would affect the well being of taxpayers in Florida, wouldn't it? Who would decide what we should vote on - Congress?

Not in my lifetime, but I think someday it'll be the norm.

How about showing you have an interest in a question the same way people show an interest in the outcome of a lawsuit???
People can either show a likely injury, or an actual injury, and short of that, the law, and government should support freedom or activity...

The first thing to remember is that people should be individually free, and it is up to others to show a negative impact to their activity... Now, because of property rights and government prejudice toward business, all kinds of injury can happen that no one can prevent... Think of the millions of tons of pollution that are dumped into the Great Lakes which are the drinking water of many millions... Well, the injury of one is weighed against the injury to others; but all the people likely to be affected, which is every person in the commonwealth should have a say... The people acting in their self interest are always going to be more just than any fraction acting in their self interest against the interest of the many... The guarantee that all will get protected and get their share of the commonwealth -is their concern for their self interest... What is the alternative, after all; but to say what is good for General Motors is good for America... If that is true; then prove it...