Here's an idea!

[bsnyder]

Good ol' Senator Byrd. If there's a road or an overpass in this state without his name on it somewhere, I haven't seen it.

I've seen that number before, by the way, and I wouldn't quite agree with it. Oh, there's no doubt that WV gets a portion of pork well out of contrast with the number of people we have. But there actually are some projects included in that number that benefit more than just WV'ians. For example, in the "pork" a few years ago was listed the new FBI fingerprint lab that is in Clarksburg, WV, and that's hardly a "pork" project. It had to be built somewhere, and because Byrd and Rockefeller were able to get it here, some people labled it a "pork" project.

But again...there's no doubt that cuts could be made. I'm just not sure that, even with the billions that would likely result, it could really make up the difference. Either something else will have to be done to help offset those costs - read: tax increases - or else we'll just be handing the bill to our children and grandchildren to pay.

It's certainly not an either/or proposition. It can be a combination of measures.

 

[Charade]

If it's clearly pork, it should be cut regardless of the critical need for those funds elsewhere. Just give me back my share of the pork!!

 

[DawnCt1]

I believe that one of the US Senators from Alabama offered to cancel his pork project.

 

[mickeyfan2]

My state gets only slightly more than WV and the population is much larger. What are my senators and reps doing wrong?

 

[wvrevy]

My state gets only slightly more than WV and the population is much larger. What are my senators and reps doing wrong?

Now you know why I'm in favor of term limits, but only if they are undertaken on a national scale...Byrd is the senior member of the senate, and both he and Rockefeller are on critical committees, and are thus able to add in whatever pork they like (though, the vast majority is by Byrd, not Rockefeller). In the senate, particularly, there is power in longevity. Because of that, we get a greater share than many others, simply because of those two men and their positions.

But as long as other states can do it, I would never support term limits on the state level. As much as Byrd may have dented the national pocketbook over the years, he really has done a great deal of good for this state (and it needs all the help it can get, at times).

 

[bsnyder]

Now you know why I'm in favor of term limits, but only if they are undertaken on a national scale...Byrd is the senior member of the senate, and both he and Rockefeller are on critical committees, and are thus able to add in whatever pork they like (though, the vast majority is by Byrd, not Rockefeller). In the senate, particularly, there is power in longevity. Because of that, we get a greater share than many others, simply because of those two men and their positions.

But as long as other states can do it, I would never support term limits on the state level. As much as Byrd may have dented the national pocketbook over the years, he really has done a great deal of good for this state (and it needs all the help it can get, at times).

FWIW, I agree with your reasoning. But hey, what happened to the "greater good" liberal mentality?

 

[DawnCt1]

I just called Chris Shay's office because there was a big old picture of him posing with the recipients of the pork filled highway bill in Ct. It can go. I called Sen. Dudd's office as well. P.S. In case anyone is wondering, Shay is a Republican better known as a RINO.

 

[ThAnswr]

Now you know why I'm in favor of term limits, but only if they are undertaken on a national scale...Byrd is the senior member of the senate, and both he and Rockefeller are on critical committees, and are thus able to add in whatever pork they like (though, the vast majority is by Byrd, not Rockefeller). In the senate, particularly, there is power in longevity. Because of that, we get a greater share than many others, simply because of those two men and their positions.

But as long as other states can do it, I would never support term limits on the state level. As much as Byrd may have dented the national pocketbook over the years, he really has done a great deal of good for this state (and it needs all the help it can get, at times).

I don't believe in term limits for any elected position, even president. I believe the people are the ones to decide when someone should be replaced and not an arbitrary law or amendment.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I don't believe in term limits for any elected position, even president. I believe the people are the ones to decide when someone should be replaced and not an arbitrary law or amendment.

Twice in one day I am in agreement with ThAnswr. Must be a full moon or the autumnal equinox???

 

[wvrevy]

I don't believe in term limits for any elected position, even president. I believe the people are the ones to decide when someone should be replaced and not an arbitrary law or amendment.

If the people would stay well informed on the issues of the day and the actions of their representatives, I would absolutely agree. But what do you think the percentage is of the population of Tom Delay's district that knows what's going on with him regarding the ethics investigation and his buddies all being indicted ? 25% ? As high as 50% ?

Term limits would assure that there was no such thing as a "career politician". You wouldn't have people in congress for 50 years, with no real connection to their home states other than a "home" address that they only see during election years. People always complain about "business as usual", but, just as I stated before, I'm not putting my gun away until everybody else does. Forced "disarmament" is the only option.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I think that there should be term limits too.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

If the people would stay well informed on the issues of the day and the actions of their representatives, I would absolutely agree. But what do you think the percentage is of the population of Tom Delay's district that knows what's going on with him regarding the ethics investigation and his buddies all being indicted ? 25% ? As high as 50% ?

Term limits would assure that there was no such thing as a "career politician". You wouldn't have people in congress for 50 years, with no real connection to their home states other than a "home" address that they only see during election years. People always complain about "business as usual", but, just as I stated before, I'm not putting my gun away until everybody else does. Forced "disarmament" is the only option.

While I agree that term limits would prevent career politicans, they also impose a rather arbitrary breach on the electorate's basic right to choose a representative government. There are no requirements that state voters must be knowledgeable or informed about the individuals running for various offices. I agree it is a sad situation that many are uninformed and vote based on either habit, name recognition/ballot placement, party affiliation, etc. But imposing term limits takes away the voter's basic right to choose, even when the choices are less than desirable.

 

[ThAnswr]

If the people would stay well informed on the issues of the day and the actions of their representatives, I would absolutely agree. But what do you think the percentage is of the population of Tom Delay's district that knows what's going on with him regarding the ethics investigation and his buddies all being indicted ? 25% ? As high as 50% ?

Term limits would assure that there was no such thing as a "career politician". You wouldn't have people in congress for 50 years, with no real connection to their home states other than a "home" address that they only see during election years. People always complain about "business as usual", but, just as I stated before, I'm not putting my gun away until everybody else does. Forced "disarmament" is the only option.

I don't think being a "career politician" is in and of itself a bad thing. Career politicians know how to run government and may even be less beholden to the special interests because they don't need them for political survival.

And I still believe, regardless of the choices, the voters have a right to decide.

 

[wvrevy]

Don't confuse "politician" with "statesman". While I agree that someone who has been in politics for a while will most likely know how to govern (though, that's not a given), it also stands to reason that they know how to milk the system for personal gain.

Political campaigns at the national level (congress and the presidency) cost tens of millions to run...all for a job that pays considerably less. The system is just too conducive to corruption. (See the recent travel scandals on both sides of the aisle for plenty of evidence of that.

Term limits would help alleviate that somewhat, I believe. Actually, that's more "I hope" than "I believe", but it's certain that the current system isn't helping the matter.

I agree that it should be the voter's right to decide who is going to represent them in Washington. But the way the system is run now, it's practically impossible to unseat a long-term incumbant (though not impossible). They just have too much influence and too much money. As many people as there are in this country, it shouldn't be all that difficult to find another person that shares your political ideals that you can vote for. There's really no reason why it has to be the same person, for decades on end.

 

[Charade]

I think that there should be term limits too.

The term "Career Politician" is an oxymoron. Well, if it isn't, the moron part about covers it.

 

[sodaseller]

While I agree that term limits would prevent career politicans, they also impose a rather arbitrary breach on the electorate's basic right to choose a representative government. There are no requirements that state voters must be knowledgeable or informed about the individuals running for various offices. I agree it is a sad situation that many are uninformed and vote based on either habit, name recognition/ballot placement, party affiliation, etc. But imposing term limits takes away the voter's basic right to choose, even when the choices are less than desirable.

I agree. Michael Kinsley calls it the "stop me before I vote again" principle, the Cincinnatus myth

 

[sodaseller]

Plus, I generally like politicians and think it is a more honorable profession that we accept, and that our pervasive cynicism on that subject does real damage.

 

[Planogirl]

The trouble with term limits is that we lose those politicians who actually do a good job. They're so rare that you want to hang on to them for as long as possible IMO.

 

[bsnyder]

The trouble with term limits is that we lose those politicians who actually do a good job. They're so rare that you want to hang on to them for as long as possible IMO.

I'm wracking my brain and I can't think of a one that we couldn't easily do without. There's some I like and respect, but I don't think it would make a bit of difference to the country if they retired.

 

[ThAnswr]

Plus, I generally like politicians and think it is a more honorable profession that we accept, and that our pervasive cynicism on that subject does real damage.

I totally agree.

We do have hacks in the political, but we also have some very good people who take their job very seriously.

It's the same with denigrating the civil servants. Keeping the wheels of government is an important. Plus, we could've probably found 10,000 people among the civil service lists that could've done a better job with Katrina.