Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
So if he gathers enough sidekicks will he have enough momentum to create a faction or even a cross party faction?

Imagine a critical mass of anti-pork barrel senators within each party.

Or if they all belong to a party the possible gain in popularity for that one.

Or a third party rising that actually well does things for the people not the special interest groups.

I wonder which SIG will organise da hit.

I doubt it. It's 2 people vs the entire Senate and House. And not even every American will support straight talk and votes on ALL appropriations, because it means someone will be percieved as having to lose. It's not just special interests in the literal sense, either, but also a slew of other things and causes -- many of them legitimate -- who will be spooked into thinking they wont ever get federal money ever again.

Expect scare tactics from supporters of earmarks, who will want the public to think libraries will close, highways will not be repaired, predators will be released due to over crowding.

But these things can and will still be funded, they will just get voted on.
If Hastert wants to say he knows the best place to put a stoplight in his district, not other congressmen, then let him prove it by telling the chamber in a vote debate. Reid seems to think earmarking has always exsisted, and he shows his stupidity on that one. Pelosi is one of the biggest critics of pork spending yet is as guilty as others



The problem, is where do we start? Everyone wants to get a piece of the pie....why should senator 1 take the moral high ground when senator 2 just got a million dollars for a park? It isn't always about garnishing peoples votes either, senator 1 may be genuinely concerned about something being funded, so he slips in an earmark since all the other kids are doing it.

On one hand, it provides funding without partisan bickering. You scratch his back he scratches yours, no matter what the cause

So would actual votes on once-earmarked appropriations make the majority a tyranny. If Senator 4 was holding out on something 30 other Senators wanted him to vote on, could they not just slow the debate or outright vote against his appropriations as revenge?

Well, thats where public input, the press and shame comes in.

Just as we can shame people for voting against anti-pork legislation, people could be shamed for voting against necessary appropriations out of spite to the persons representing the state. Also, consider each state has multiple representatives in washington, so it wont just be one guy vs the entire senate. So...Senator #1 needs funds for better facilties at Rural hospitals, yet Senators 8, 9 and 10 vote against it despite voting for similar or less important measures earleir. Senator 1 points out that Senators 8,9 and 10 are angry because Senator 1 voted against huge appropriations for new zoos in their state. Now senators 8,9 and 10 llok like asses.

Thats what it would sink to. Good or bad? Do we really think that congress will be such sour grapes as to deny each other necessities and the occasional pet project out of spite? Well, nothing would surprise me.

Another interesting thing to consider is the LEGALITIES of voting on appropriations because this in effect makes it more of a law than just a bunch of money to be tossed in the general direction. In other words, if the house and senate approve Senator 3's request for 20 million dollars to put a defillabrator in every state police car, Senator 3 better make damn sure thats where the money goes or someones head is gonna roll.

In closing, a recap:

-will these sort of votes make the majority a tyranny?
-if so, do you think the public might pay attention to politics a little more?

-will these sort of votes require politicians to walk the walk, not just talk the talk? will it make them more accountable, not just for how their state spends its money but also for how they vote for other states monies?
-do you think they actually want accountability?