Functionally is does work the same. The national budget is a funding source that is available to any rep who wants to propose a project to get funded. That's NATIONAL in scope (notice the NATIONAL part before 'budget'). One rep gets his funding for one project in his state/district and another rep gets his funding in return. That's why there's pork in every state. Some of it is cultural, some environmental, some educational. Its not limited to art but it works out the same. And there is not that much oversight on where or what kind of projects the NEA funds, which is why they've been in so much hot water over the years. I could say "I don't want to fund Maplethorpe's Piss Christ" but I understand that's the way the system works. We don't get to choose each and every line of the budget, our reps do. There is MORE oversight in the budget than at the NEA. Reps don't just get to attach anything they want to the bill, unless I missed something. And its incorrect to think these measures only benefit localities. Preserving cultural sites benefits us all (for all of us to see). Environmental measures benefit us all (the ecological system is interconnected). Education efforts benefit us all (better education means less crime, better economy etc). I do think this is interesting, though, as in the 'New Cold War' thread many are claiming we don't do enough to fund 'culture' and here people are griping about funding it. Oh well....
I didn't say it never happened before. In fact, that's why I said it was of marginal interest. The best way to hold down spending is to have one party in control of the White house and the other in control of Congress. But I doubt many people went to the polls thinking about that.
And is this really the way you think things should be run? I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine? Is the Coca-Cola building in Macon, GA a cultural site to be preserved, or an education effort that reduces crime? Is that swimming pool in Salinas, CA an environmental measure?
Of course. That's the way democracy works through compromise and local representation. Otherwise every member of Congress would have to be an expert on every issue in every district. Not feasible. We elect local officials (reps/Senators) to balance our local and national interests. They do that. You don't get a line item veto as a citizen. Its just not feasible. Pepsi is gross so anything with Coca-Cola in the title is worth funding for certain. If you look at the list its easy to see that its comprised of many different projects that are all (at least by category) worthy of national funding (education, environment, cultural preservation etc). Granted I don't know what soybean rust is, but I'm sure the local rep does, and has made his case to the greater body or it wouldn't be in the bill. That doesn't mean that EVERY project that is funded is a complete success or 'worth it' in the end, but you don't condemn the system for small failures. You don't get rid of food stamps because a few highly publicized 'welfare mommas' have more kids to get more money. Too many good things are involved in that system to scrap it because of some waste.
I would agree with you with this if it were true, but it's not. These earmarks are slipped in and are never reviewed or argued for or against in either chamber. These appropriations are true pork. They are paybacks and favors to those to help elect these men and women. It doesn't matter what party does it, it is wasteful. The level of pork we have seen in the last 4 years is mind-blowing.
Soybeans could be the answer to America's renewable energy question. One of the cheapest (if not the cheapest) sources of renewable power is generated by burning biodiesel, which is made from soybeans. Biodiesel cogen is much more economical than wind or solar power.
im all about spending. but lets tax too. the thing thats troubling is that this party is now the spend and not tax and dont give a damn about the debt party.
