So, what about the Highway Bill? It's porkalicious!

[chess]

Went out of my way to find a conservative source...hope you appreciate it. ;)

Congress's Latest Christmas Tree Bill
by David Boaz

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and co-editor of the Cato Handbook on Policy.

How is a museum like a highway?

Answer: Both get lots of money in the "highway bill" that Congress is currently debating.

And not just one museum, either. The massive $284 billion spending bill includes $3 million for the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, where the Packard automobile was first produced. There's also $1.5 million for the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich., and $400,000 for the Erie Canal Museum in Syracuse, N.Y.

At least those museums have something to do with transportation, though that doesn't quite explain why they should be paid for by federal income taxpayers. But there's money for three children's museums in the bill, as well, including $14 million for the Children's Museum of Indianapolis. Why are taxpayers in California and Texas and Massachusetts paying for a museum in Indianapolis?

The porkbarrel projects in this bill don't stop with museums, of course. Members of Congress have loaded the bill with some 4,000 special projects for their states and districts—free money, it seems, that the senators and representatives can boast about back home. It's Christmas in May.

Even the transportation projects don't seem to have much national purpose. Perhaps the most egregious item is $125 million for a bridge linking Gravina Island to the town of Ketchikan in Alaska. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, federal taxpayers will eventually pay $315 million for this bridge. Here's the deal: Ketchikan is a town of 8,000 people (13,000 in the whole county, and population is declining). Its airport is on the nearby Gravina Island [population 50]. Right now you have to take a 7-minute ferry ride from the airport to the town. To save people that 7-minute ride, Alaska wants to build a $315 million bridge.

But even if Alaska wants to do it, why should Congress pay for it? Maybe because Alaska's congressman, Don Young, is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Young managed to squeeze $722 million for Alaska into the bill.

But he's not alone. The bill also includes

$2 million to construct a garage on the campus of Lipscomb University, a college in Nashville affiliated with the Churches of Christ;
$4 million for a graffiti-elimination program in Queens and Brooklyn;
$500,000 for sidewalks and landscaping in Glennville, Ga.
$1.5 million for horse trails in High Knob, Va.;
$850,000 for a bike and trolley path in Hattiesburg, Miss.;
$2 million for a parking facility in Bozeman, Mont.;
$14 million for reconstruction of a crosstown expressway in Oklahoma City.
Now you might say that if every state and city gets something out of the bill, then what's the problem? But of course not every state gets an equal amount, or an amount equal to the taxes paid by its citizens. States with powerful congressmen like Don Young get more.

But even if it were fairly divided, why send the money on a round trip to Washington? Why not let city councils and state legislatures decide how best to spend their taxpayers' money?

Local museums, parking garages, and crosstown expressways ought to be paid for locally. Last year's budget bill included money for the construction of an additional lane to the off-ramp of the northbound Ventura Freeway at Van Nuys Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. A better example of a local project might be hard to imagine. Though the Gravina Island Bridge might top it.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill to turn over responsibility for highways and transportation to the states. He would also roll the federal gasoline tax back from 18 cents a gallon to 2 cents, allowing the states to raise gas taxes if necessary to fund projects locally. Some state legislatures have endorsed the idea, though other legislators like getting free money from Washington to build local projects.

As transportation economist Gabriel Roth writes in a Cato Institute study, "States fully responsible for their own roads would have stronger incentives to ensure that funds paid by road users were spent efficiently. For example, in the absence of federal grants for new construction, some states could prefer to better manage and maintain their existing roads rather than build new ones. Others might find ways to encourage the private sector to assume more of the burden of road provision—for example, by contracting with private firms to maintain their roads to designated standards or to provide new roads."

Last year President Bush and Congress agreed to hold the highway bill to $256 billion, a vast sum of money in a budget already in deficit. This year Bush promised not to veto a bill that was $28 billion higher, at $284 billion. And on Wednesday the Senate passed a $295 billion bill.

If the Senate and the House agree on such a huge number, President Bush will face a test: Do his occasional veto threats mean anything? He hasn't vetoed a single bill in more than four years; no president since John Quincy Adams has gone four years without a veto. With spending up 33 percent in four years, now would be a good time to tell Congress to consider new ideas that would be better for taxpayers and better for transportation.

McCain had a great quote about the $50M project to landscape the Ronald Reagan highway in CA. He said something simple to the effect of "What would Reagan think about that?"

Editorial: I love that they mention that Jeff Flake is a Republican, but fail to mention which party the pork pushers are from. I would think most folks could just look at the states and figure it out though...Alaska, Va, TN, GA, Miss, Mont...little states with big ideas...apparently.

Paid for with your tax dollars. You're welcome.

[Ranger]

$2 million to construct a garage on the campus of Lipscomb University, a college in Nashville affiliated with the Churches of Christ;
A parking garage for only $2 million? I thought those things cost a lot more than that. Or maybe the school's already paying for most it. There are thousands of schools across the nation that need parking garages, I wonder why that school got one.

Of course there's a lot of pork but I think overall, the bill still is a good thing. It's getting rather embarrassing every time the news put on some conservative guy who seems to be totally against the bill.

[Myster X]

WTF?????
$4 million for a graffiti-elimination program in Queens and Brooklyn

[Myster X]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072900139.html


By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 30, 2005; Page A09

Lawmakers packed $24 billion in special projects into the transportation bill that finally passed Congress yesterday, including $5.9 million for a Vermont snowmobile trail and $3 million for a documentary about Alaska infrastructure.

The legislation took nearly two years to complete and comes close to the $284 billion cap set by President Bush. Lawmakers were eager to deliver the heaping platter of road-construction dollars, mass-transit support and safety assistance. The package is worth $286.5 billion over six years, a 30 percent increase over the $218 billion program that expired in September 2003.

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, declared when the House passed the bill 412 to 8 yesterday: "This day is a truly momentous day for users of our nation's transportation infrastructure."

The Senate passed the bill 91 to 4. All lawmakers from Maryland and Virginia voted for the measure.

One of the bill's biggest winners is Young's home state. It is awarded $941 million for 119 special projects, according to an analysis by the government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The group found that Young helped to secure $231 million for a bridge in Anchorage to be named Don Young's Way; $223 million for a bridge to Ketchikan; and $15 million for a Juneau access road, dubbed the Black Ice Highway by group analyst Erich Zimmermann because "that's all you'll see in the winter if this project is built."

The group found 6,376 special projects in the 1,752-page bill. California, Illinois and New York received the largest sums, with Alaska ranking fourth. Next were Texas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Oklahoma -- the latter being the home state of Sen. James M. Inhofe (R), the bill's chief Senate negotiator.

Despite the transportation bill's popularity, it stumbled all the way to the finish line. Congress had to pass 11 extensions of the previous act while negotiators haggled over funding disparities between states and tried to stay within range of Bush's budget cap.

The bill was temporarily derailed in the House on Thursday night after lawmakers objected to a provision added by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that would have reopened a runway at Malmstrom Air Force Base that the Pentagon had closed. House members decried the maneuver as a breach of the base-closing process, and Baucus pulled the provision yesterday morning.

In addition to the pork, the bill altered the formula used to allocate highway dollars, increasing the guaranteed minimum rate of return on the amount of gasoline taxes and other revenue that states contribute to the Highway Trust Fund. "Donor states" such as Texas and Florida, which contribute more in tax dollars than they get back in federal aid, secured a minimum 92 percent rate of return beginning in 2008, up from 90.5 percent.

Some states will get huge increases. Missouri's rate of return had fallen to 76 percent in 1989; it secured a 98 percent rate under the new bill, translating into more than $1 billion in additional funds through 2009.

"It has been a long time in coming," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), one of the bill's senior negotiators. Bond wangled an additional $467.5 million in special projects, including $50 million for a bridge in Kansas City, Mo.

Although lawmakers say they are trying to hold down spending, transportation dollars are regarded as among the more meritorious forms of pork.

Lawmakers were proud to list their bounty. For instance, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who leads the House Conservative Caucus and touts himself as a fiscal hawk, issued a news release detailing $16 million in funding that he secured for central Indiana projects. The list includes $3 million to extend a recreational trail in Richmond and $4 million for a nine-mile frontage road in Anderson.

"These projects will spur economic development and improve the quality of life for thousands of Hoosiers," Pence said in the release.

A few lawmakers voiced complaints. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) called the legislation "no way to spend money" and said, "Let's be honest . . . it's busting the budget."

[OldDude]

Hey, Congress dudes, here's a simple idea:

If it's not paved, and I can't drive 75 mph on it, it's not a highway and doesn't belong in a highway bill.

[classicman2]

Once again - what is the definition of pork?

If you don't know - consult Senator Trent Lott. ;)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to what the Cato Institute has to say about federal expenditures. They're opposed to them all - well, maybe, the exception would be defense spending.

Mr. Boaz certainly should be aware that it's not unusual in the legislative process to attach measures to bills - measures that really have very little, if anything, to do with the bill.

[Duran]

Mr. Boaz certainly should be aware that it's not unusual in the legislative process to attach measures to bills - measures that really have very little, if anything, to do with the bill.

So just because it happens, it's okay?

I think the Republicans are just religious, pro-Iraq Democrats at this point.

[DVD Polizei]

I think that pretty much sums up Republicans, come to think of it. :lol:

:up: Duran :up:

[classicman2]

What's wrong with it? The vast majority of time - nothing. It speeds up the legislative process - especially appropriation bills. Sometimes it's necessary because what is attached is an emergency.

One of the few times I see something wrong with it is when the Repubs attach some things to a defense bill, and they know by doing so that the opponents of those attachments can't vote against the bill as a whole for fear that you will be labelled as 'non-defenders of the troops.'

[VinVega]

One person's pork is another person's needed improvement. :shrug:

The Alaska bridge deal is pretty funny though. :lol:

[Duran]

One person's pork is another person's needed improvement. :shrug:

The Alaska bridge deal is pretty funny though. :lol:

Then that other person should be paying for it, not me. :)

[VinVega]

Then that other person should be paying for it, not me. :)
I assume MD will be getting some of the highway bill's "pork" then and you, as a committed citizen have a list of all the roads that will be receiving this aid and will not be driving on them out of protest. :up: (Since other people paid for YOUR improvements.)

[classicman2]

Is Maryland a donor state, btw?

[Draven]

As OldDude already said...why doesn't a "highway bill" only deal with highway improvements?

[Red Dog]

I think the Republicans are just religious, pro-Iraq Democrats at this point.


If you're describing the Party, yeah, that pretty much works.

I remember Stossel reporting on the ridiculous idea of building the Ketchikan bridge.


I assume MD will be getting some of the highway bill's "pork" then and you, as a committed citizen have a list of all the roads that will be receiving this aid and will not be driving on them out of protest. (Since other people paid for YOUR improvements.)

Given how much interstate commerce takes place along I-95, a reasonable argument can be made for highway improvements in Maryland (like building a new Woodrow Wilson Bridge). I don't see a reasonable argument for building a $315M bridge that serves 8,000 people when there is a perfectly adequate infrastructure in place.

[VinVega]

Look, I'll admit that some of this stuff is pork, but you have to qualify how much pork we're talking about. The Alaska bridge is probably a full pig, while the Oklahoma City Expwy might only be a hoof or a leg. ;)

[classicman2]

You residents of Maryland - I ask again the question - is Maryland a donor state?

You residents of Virginia - I ask the same question.

[Duran]

I assume MD will be getting some of the highway bill's "pork" then and you, as a committed citizen have a list of all the roads that will be receiving this aid and will not be driving on them out of protest. :up: (Since other people paid for YOUR improvements.)

Whether I use the roads or not is irrelevant. I'm not saying all the pet projects in this bill should be done, I'm saying they shouldn't be federally funded.

I don't think maintenance of the interstate highway system necessarily quailifies as "pork", though, since I think it's quite easy to justify the expenditure in the Constitution. That said, I wouldn't think that includes graffiti removal programs, highway "beautification", useless Alaskan bridges for 8,000 people, and a parking garage for a Christian school.

[Duran]

You residents of Maryland - I ask again the question - is Maryland a donor state?

You residents of Virginia - I ask the same question.

Irrelevant. If I move to a "donor" state, does that magically make my opinion more or less valid?

[classicman2]

Irrelevant my ass - you're living of the 'welfare tit.'

[Duran]

Irrelevant my ass - you're living of the 'welfare tit.'

So what? I'd be stupid not to take advantage of money and programs the government offers me. I might as well get some of the money I spend in taxes back.

But even so, it's not like I have a choice in the matter as to whether I'm living off the "welfare tit." I'd be more than happy to have federal pork eliminated and have the states pay for things they need on their own. I support that for Maryland just as much as I do for Virginia and for Alaska.

[Red Dog]

You residents of Maryland - I ask again the question - is Maryland a donor state?

You residents of Virginia - I ask the same question.


How the hell should I know? What does it matter. If something is a waste, it is a waste, no matter whether it is in VA, MD, or AK. Is this one of your ridiculous attempts to paint people hypocrites like your exposes on those who take the HMID.

[Red Dog]

Here is a VA improvement (using federal funds) I don't support, even though it would definitely make things more convenient for me - extending Metrorail to Dulles.

Why not? I don't think it is necessary.

[Mordred]

A parking garage for only $2 million? I thought those things cost a lot more than that. Or maybe the school's already paying for most it. There are thousands of schools across the nation that need parking garages, I wonder why that school got one.University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio is also getting a $2 million parking garage. Apparently that's what the government pays to religious universities with inadequate parking :)

[Mordred]

How the hell should I know? What does it matter. If something is a waste, it is a waste, no matter whether it is in VA, MD, or AK. Is this one of your ridiculous attempts to paint people hypocrites like your exposes on those who take the HMID.Thank you. :up:

[JasonF]

DONOR STATE REBELLION
As Texas once again accuses the sodomite Northeast of stealing Southern tax dollars, one writer attempts to broker a fair, equitable solution
Paul McMorrow

The occasional annoyance many Bay Staters feel towards the state of Texas boiled over into a full-blown aneurism last week when House Majority Leader Tom DeLay suggested that Northeastern states are unfairly leeching Southern and Midwestern states' highway money.

“It's a tremendous unfairness that has been going on in our highway system,” the Globe quoted DeLay as saying. “States like mine and others are sending a lot of money to the federal government and getting very little back.”

The “tremendous unfairness” DeLay was fulminating over centers on the $286 billion transportation bill that the House is expected to act on this week. Federal highway construction funds are drawn from the Department of Transportation's highway trust fund, an account that is fed by the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax motorists pay at the pump. In 1982 Congress guaranteed states a minimum gas tax return of 85 percent; that minimum guaranteed funding was later raised to 90.5 percent of statewide gas tax receipts.

Despite this standard, in 2003, Texas drivers received only 89 cents for every gas tax dollar they sent to Washington. A number of other Southern states, including Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and North Carolina, are also seeing their gas tax dollars flowing out of state.

But where are those dollars going? According to a group of bullshit Southern and Midwestern Congressmen lining up behind DeLay, the highway funding that rightfully belongs to wholesome Middle America is being funneled into the atheist, sodomite North. For years, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island have been suckling the gas tax teat, raking in billions more in highway aid than their drivers have contributed to the government. This may be, as the area's leaders allege, because lots of people live in the area and traverse its oft-potholed roads. Or maybe the region's residents are vindictive bastards, robbing Middle America blind.

DeLay is apparently of the latter mindset; before passage of the transportation bill, the majority leader will attempt to restructure the government's highway funding formula so that each state's future highway aid is tied to its residents' gas tax contributions. Under such an arrangement, Florida gas tax dollars would be dedicated to fixing Florida highways, Texas dollars reserved for Texas, and Cambridge liberals left to drive their hybrid ZipCars over crumbling roadways and collapsing bridges.

“This is an outrage!” my editor seethed. Indeed. In the Globe, Somerville Congressman and House Transportation Committee member Mike Capuano assured nervous locals that DeLay's plan wouldn't result in local projects getting cut; instead, states with low rates of gas tax return would be mollified this go-round by “increasing the size of the pie.” Capuano's reassurances, however, did nothing to rectify the obvious problem with DeLay's plan to link highway funding to gas tax contributions: Liberal states may be net gainers when it comes to highway funding, but the region's citizens more than make up for this, as the rest of their federal tax dollars disappear down Middle America's greasy craw.

Seven of the 10 states with the nation's highest federal tax burden (for FY03)-California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts-are also states that went for Kerry. Of those states, only Pennsylvania received more in federal aid ($1.08 for every dollar paid in federal taxes) than it paid out. California, with the nation's highest gross tax burden, received only $0.78 for every dollar it paid in taxes. New York, ranked second, received $0.80 on the dollar. New Jersey got $0.57 per dollar, Massachusetts got $0.78, and the others fared similarly poorly, paying out significantly more in federal taxes than they received.

By comparison, the three Bush states in the top 10-Texas (ranked third in taxes paid), Florida (fourth) and Ohio (eighth)-virtually broke even. The pattern holds true for the next 10 states: while five are blue and five are red, four of the blue states are significant net donors, while only one red state (Colorado, ranked 20th and receiving $0.80 per dollar) sees a substantial percentage of its tax dollars flow out of state.

Given this, DeLay's push to restructure the highway funding formula appears misguided, if not vindictive and outright bastardly. The majority leader accuses us of stealing his highway money, even though Texas and its bug-swattin', gator-wrasslin' allies are using the federal tax system to funnel much-needed resources out of the liberal North and West.

“We're really just trying to bring equity to the system,” DeLay spokesman Dan Allen answered, when asked, “WTF?” “It's estimated that for every billion dollars spent on highways, we create 45,000 jobs. We want to spread those jobs across the country.”

It was a semi-rational statement, but not one that squelched my quest for satisfaction. Moreover, if these people can arbitrarily craft public policy, what's to stop me from doing the same? I was prepared for DeLay staffers' dive behind fairness, and in the name of equity, shot back, “OK, what if you kept your gas tax and we keep our federal taxes? Why not spread fairness all around?”

“Every industry benefits from improved infrastructure and mobility. It's equity for the American people,” Allen told me. “We want to keep the focus on transportation and make sure donor states get a more equitable rate of return.”

Undeterred, I hit the phones hard, calling DeLay's allies on the House Transportation Committee and asking them if they'd be willing to sign on to the compromise-you keep the gas tax you're whining so much about, and in return, we don't have to subsidize your retard executions anymore.

The first office to not hang up on me or transfer me to voicemail at the utterance of the word “Boston” belonged to Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. of Louisiana. Louisiana is a gas tax donor state, although it receives $1.47 in federal aid for every dollar of taxes its citizens and businesses pay; clearly, we both feel aggrieved by the current distribution of federal funds.

The intern who answered Boustany's phone repeatedly tried to transfer me to someone with the authority to hang up on reporters, but I kept her on the line. “Anyone can see that this makes perfect sense,” I told her. “It's perfect! Everybody keeps what's theirs. So, does your boss want in?”

“I'm not sure,” she stammered. “You've got to talk to someone else.”

We found more indecision at the Texas district office of Congressman Kenny Marchant. Staffers in Marchant's DC office were unavailable or unwilling to talk, but we figured that some enterprising district staffer would parlay the brilliance of the compromise into a promotion.

We figured wrong. After laying out our tit-for-tat plan, we were told, “Gee, I honestly can't comment.” When asked why not, she confessed, “I don't know anything about that. I only handle casework.”

Even when we found somebody with real authority, like Anouck McCall, communications director for Texas Congressman Ted Poe, we were unable to spread the cause of equality and fairness. “Let me take that all in,” she began, contemplating whether or not we'd quote her if she told us to fuck off. Apparently deciding (correctly) that we would, she said, “I need to share this material with our legislative director. Do you have something written that we could look over?”

“No, my boss is totally nuts. He just thrust this on me and told me to get working. I don't want to get fired. Are you in?”

They weren't.

Nor was Jeff Cohen, Florida Congressman Connie Mack's chief of staff. “Is this something that's being proposed on the floor?” he asked.

“No it's something that we're proposing to try to break this logjam and spread freedom and equality,” I replied. “We're just one newspaper trying to make a difference, trying to create a groundswell of support for freedom.”

“Well, if you have some language we can take a closer look at it,” Cohen replied. “As a donor state, Florida is certainly interested in getting more of its fair share, as are all donor states. Maybe in the longer term, we could take a look at it and understand the pros and cons.”

But, according to Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, there are no pros. He sees the Balkanization of federal funding, whether they be gas tax, farm subsidies or Medicaid funds, as undermining the government's federal mission to serve all its citizens. Needless to say, Frank disputed the logic of the Dig-DeLay compromise.

“It doesn't make sense to look at just one program,” Frank argued. “It's a denial of the notion that we're one country. The country's not uniform and different programs are needed in different areas; the government doesn't exist to deal with states, it exists to deal with people. The logic of Bush's tax cuts was to send money back to the people, but [without federal help] people can't get together and build a road.”

http://www.weeklydig.com/index.cfm/issueID/77d169fa-f7c2-407a-aa49-d867eab90013/fuseaction/article.view/issueID/77d169fa-f7c2-407a-aa49-d867eab90013/articleID/a4029ad6-caad-4add-997c-5827922c1c9a/nodeID/4b1339d1-be3a-44a2-be8b-1484963a003a

[classicman2]

How the hell should I know?

I thought you libertarians were well-informed as to where your tax money is going.

Maybe you're only well-informed if your state is not benefitting from it. ;)

[wendersfan]

I thought you libertarians were well-informed as to where your tax money is going.

Maybe you're only well-informed if your state is not benefitting from it. ;)Whether or not his state is benefitting from it doesn't mean he has anything to do with that fact.

[B.A.]

A good chunk of the money going to Illinois and Missouri is going towards a new Mississippi River bridge along I-70, although the cost of the project has been slashed from it's original budget of about $1B.

[chess]

I can't speak to the unit of measure (I assume length), but I just heard that the Alaskan bridge is bigger than the Golden Gate bridge?

I'm looking for a party that is sickened by this sort of thing and isn't afraid to say so. I have no problem whatsoever with nondefense appropriations like SS, Medicare, FICA, HUD, etc...but when the folks who call those programs wasteful build pet bridges, I want to see fucking heads roll.

[mikehunt]

local news has been all estatic over the announcemetns from schumer and higgins about the pork they're bringing to buffalo
I hear the reports and say "why the fuck are federal tax dollars being spent on thi?"

[grundle]

I'm looking for a party that is sickened by this sort of thing and isn't afraid to say so.
I'm looking for such a party, too. Too bad such a party doesn't exist.

[classicman2]

I am not looking for another party, and I have no real problem with the transportation bill.

I think a bunch of folks seem to be rather naive. They seem to think that you can have 'perfect' legislation. They don't seem to understand that such a thing doesn't exist, because compromise is always necessary. You settle for the best you can get, or you settle for nothing. I choose the 'best you can get' approach.

[Gallant Pig]

I am not looking for another party, and I have no real problem with the transportation bill.

I think a bunch of folks seem to be rather naive. They seem to think that you can have 'perfect' legislation. They don't seem to understand that such a thing doesn't exist, because compromise is always necessary. You settle for the best you can get, or you settle for nothing. I choose the 'best you can get' approach.

You don't think the Alaska pork found in the bill is a little overboard?

[Red Dog]

I am not looking for another party, and I have no real problem with the transportation bill.

I think a bunch of folks seem to be rather naive. They seem to think that you can have 'perfect' legislation. They don't seem to understand that such a thing doesn't exist, because compromise is always necessary. You settle for the best you can get, or you settle for nothing. I choose the 'best you can get' approach.


The problem is when the least common denominator = everyone with their hands out and saying gimmie gimmie gimmie. It's pretty sad if that is the "best we can get."

[DVD Polizei]

Any "bill" that is signed into law these days has so many parasitic attachments, it's rather sad. But then again, it reflects our leaders and their leadership.

[classicman2]

It's not new to this leadership - it's been like that for decades and decades.

[B.A.]

If bills like this aren't signed, then you would have hundreds of one-term Congressman. Bringing home the bacon = votes.