I like that system. There are costs, mind you – I can already imagine the speculative booms that some postings would generate, which could actually drive up the cost of the projects, but I’m sure some creative minds can work around that.

This could be a natural extension of USASpending.gov , the website that came out of legislation from Tom Coburn and Obama a couple years ago.

It would be easy to make a case that an extension to the Interstate Highway System, anywhere in the country, is nationally important. Or upgrading an international airport. It’s much harder to make the case that tossing funds at some repertory company in some town is nationally important.

Any kid who plays SimCity on his computer, understands this distinction.

I’ve seen plenty of earmarks where the money was wholly justifiable. Sometimes a very good argument can be made that the request should have gone into the regular budget process and be channeled through the proper agency. Sometimes a very good argument can be made that there are some external factors which made it a very good idea for America to invest in something (Besides some congressperson’s reputation, even) for which there was a window of opportunity that the normal processes could not respond to.

Moreover, a congressperson has some portion of their duty being to represent their constituency against the larger forces of the federal bureaucracy. The bureaucracy may not have an interest in opening up road access to some large unserved area in Senator X’s state, or in buildling a dam that creates a lot of new developable land – but Senator X’s constituency might have a significant interest in this economic investment.

There is a legitimate “build it your own damn selves, then” argument in those cases – but when I travel around the country I see way to much Federally funded infrastructure that has produced manyfold returns on the original dollar, that would have been delayed or perhaps never even built had it been left to local jurisdictions (or to the private sector). And an awful lot of those projects were built because some Congressman “brought home the bacon”.

That’s not to say that there aren’t projects that should never be funded. I’m just not as ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater on this topic as some are.

If you want to have a debate that the size of earmarks that currently exists is healthy than I would welcome that debate.

Ahh – but you’re talking a different language than your Democratic friends, I assume.

Because most Democrats I’ve met don’t really care if a kid needing healthcare is in a Red State or Blue State. Dems believe that we’re all going to be better off if our weakest links are stronger. They don’t care if air or water pollution is being generated in a Red or Blue community, since somewhere downstream or downwind it will be ingested or breathed by someone else.

In other words, you argument sounds compelling to you, but it probably doesn’t resonate with their concerns.

It is a point I try to make to my Democratic friends. If you don’t like Miss. and SD, stop voting for politicians who support the federal expansion of domestic programs. And stop supporting politicians who mainly stay in power by supporting pork. Senator Daschle was completely out of touch with his district but his main argument was that he brought in over $2 to SD for every dollar that SD sent to the federal government. Blue-State Democrats allowed this to happen.

The most recent balance of payment data I can find is from 1999 (anyone have more recent?) but it showed the top states in money received from the Federal Govt vs money sent to Washington in taxes:

NM 1
MT 2
VA 3
ND 4
WV 5
AK 6
MS 7
SD 8
AL 9
HI 10
OK 11

and at the bottom (states which gave more to Washington then they get back in taxes):

CT 50
NJ 49
NH 48
IL 47
NV 46
MN 45
MI 44
DE 43
MA 42
NY 41
WI 40
CA 39

Part of your comment I agree with that is “Cities are populated”. The remainder well that is just so old school Republican. My city metro is the 7th largest comglomeration of people in the US – I disagree that the majority are looking for welfare and this comment would make them all laugh. That would be a Democrat gut buster you see.
Plus in general cities have a higher percentage of convicted felons who are not eligible for any W checks. Not only is your remark typical GOP- it’s probably not correct on a percapita basis.
The suburb where I reside was Republican majority – but no more…. From observation, I knew this well before the numbers were analyzed.

For those of you busy selling your perfect concepts to each other and won’t hear that change is needed, check the gallup poll here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx

And thanks johnb, of course Rush isn’t helpful. Women are repulsed by RL. Women or as in Rush speak, fem nazi’s have exited the GOP. Why and what percentage of the general population is female so has RL formidable presence been smart???? I can answer that too without formal analysis.

> Because Democrat lite ain’t gonna beat the real thing, especially if the “real thing” is a Obama and the… er… fake thing is McCain.

Well, McCain does have a reputation for integrity and heroism. We probably agree that insincere poll-driven flip-flopping impostors such as Mitt Romney won’t do, no matter how many times they promise to “double the Gitmo!” as Mitt enthusiastically told a GOP audience.

> Sure, Bush and the RINO Congresses of 2001-2006 were a drag on McCain as was the RINO congressional minority of 2007-2008.

Could you please name the RINOs that in your opinion were so influential, then… Starting with the Bush Administration, both Secretaries of State (Powell and Rice) might qualify as RINOs but especially the former did not have much influence. Maybe Alberto Gonzalez too. But let’s look at the rest! Cheney? Conservative. Rumsfeld? Conservative. Michael Mukasey? Conservative. Elliot Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz? All Neocons. Ashcroft? Religious conservative. And nobody ever accused chief architect Karl Rove of being a Republican-in-name-only.
The only RINOs (Powell, Whitman, Ridge) were marginal figures at best.

Same story if you look the Republican House/Senate leaders and their lifetime American Conservative Union ratings prior to the 2006 blowout (yes, the ACU ratings are imperfect but it a useful metric nonetheless).

Tom DeLay? Arch-conservative (ACU=92.88%)…

Denny Hastert? Lifetime ACU rating of 92.9% in 2005.

Bill Frist? 87.8% lifetime ACU rating.

Trent Lott? 92.4% ACU rating.

Virtually *all* the architects of the GOP mess in 2001-06 were in fact ideological, staunch conservatives of some kind or another! Blaming *McCAIN* (or Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins) for the GOP mismanagement seems more than a little bit unfair, no? At least Maverick was pushing for campaign finance reform, which may or may not be a good idea but at least he was willing to see there was a problem.

>> The economy hurt McCain. The GOP’s involvement with Abramoff and the “ick” factor of Foley tarred the entire Republican “brand.”

> Now against CLINTON [...]

Well, Clinton is beside the point: you don’t get to pick your favorite opponent.

Final question: do you think someone like Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich (if he’d run) would have beaten Obama last year?
You constantly claim that a genuine full spectrum conservative a la Rush Limbaugh wins every time.

MARCU$