There was a lot of discussion over earmarks in the presidential campaign, with McCain singling out an Obama earmark for $3 million for Illinois’ Adler Planetarium, ostensibly to buy some new equipment. McCain, who has not requested any earmarks since he was involved in the Keating Five Scandal, cited this earmark as an example of government waste and frivolous spending. Why, he asked, should the U.S. government pay for a new planetarium projector system in Illinois?
Fair enough. And you’d also be correct in citing most earmarks as non-essential projects that are uninvolved with running the country. No earmark illustrates that better than the legendary Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere – which Sarah Palin was for before she was against – and was seen as a classic example of pork spending purely for now former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens.
But the Bridge to Nowhere is unusual for a few reasons. The only reason it got noticed was because of its price tag – $398 million, which caused the Congressional Committee to actually take a look at it and see what a travesty it was. Most earmarks are overlooked because they cost far, far less than that. Despite McCain’s opposition, earmarks only count for 0.5% of the FY 2008 budget. Granted, that was $16.5 billion but it consisted of 11,524 earmarks – an average of $1.4 million each if my math is correct. Hiding $1.4 million in the mountain of appropriation bills that comprise almost a $3 trillion budget is nothing.
I can understand the frustration if someone doesn’t want the U.S. giving $3 million for projector equipment in Illinois. But what if you live in Illinois and your kids are taking a field trip to the Adler Planetarium? What if your kid sees the cool pictures of the universe the projector provides and becomes interested in science? What if the projector makes Adler one of the leading planetariums in the Midwest and the planetarium and local businesses reap in new money? Then you’d consider that money well-spent and you’d like to thank the government for the money, and Senator Obama for sneaking it into an anonymous bill that wasn’t vetted too carefully.
The truth about earmarks is that while they may be wasteful to most, it is one of the best ways for Congressmen and Senators to prove their worth to their constituents. Bringing home the bacon isn’t just the goal of family breadwinners; it’s also the goal of elected officials at the local and national level. Barney Frank is my Congressman, and he publishes a list of earmark requests on his Web site, although the cost is not included. Scanning them you see everything from Fall River sewer improvements to Taunton nursing home renovations. And yes, those two towns are part of his district. Part of his job is to get businesses, colleges and citizens the money they need to complete projects. To them, this is not pork – they are vital improvements that will benefit Massachusetts residents. Of course, if you’re not in Frank’s district you probably think they’re wasteful spending. Some will pass and some will not.
Are some earmarks unnecessary pork? Yes. Do they benefit friends and financial supporters of elected officials? Sometimes. Should there be better transparencies in the earmark process, including their full cost and what bills they are slapped onto? Absolutely. Should they be banned outright? No. While earmarks can be infuriating, they remain one of the best ways for members of Congress to send benefits and money directly to their districts. It helps them tout their accomplishments in re-election campaigns. And ironically if a Congressman isn’t bringing home enough earmarks, even their fiscally hawkish constituents may vote them out of office for not helping their towns enough and forgetting about the citizens they represent.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Monday, January 05, 2009
Jett Travolta's Death and Scientology - The Missing Link?
Am I the only one who finds the tragic death of John Travota’s 16-year-old son suspicious? And am I the only one who believes the media is once again not doing its job in reporting and investigating it?
First, I am not a doctor. There are no autopsy reports (yet). But initial reports that the boy died from falling and hitting his head in the bathroom after a seizure seems too suspicious to accept at face value. But even if that is the case, reports are now filtering in that the boy was not on any medication even though he seemed to suffer one big seizure every week.
The Travoltas have also said their son suffered from Kawasaki Syndrome, which he got from inhaling carpet cleaner when he was a toddler. Here’s some links to Kawasaki here and here, and in NONE of these places does it list an environmental cause like carpet cleaner. It largely affects the heart and arterial systems and does not cause seizures, although a heart attack could cause one, and that would show up in an autopsy.
But the 800 pound gorilla here that nobody is discussing is Scientology. Travolta and his family are Scientologists and largely disdain medicine, especially pharmaceutical drugs. Tom Cruise, another prominent Scientologist, is now more famous for disparaging medicine in a famous interview than his acting. How someone with only a high school could know more about medicine and biotechnology than the world’s top doctors and the entire pharmaceutical industry is a topic you can judge for yourself, but his views are largely in agreement with other Scientologists.
If it is discovered that Jett Travolta’s death could have been prevented by medication that his parents refused to give him, expect the contretemps on religion and Scientology to erupt again. And if that is indeed the case, I believe Travolta and his wife should be prosecuted.
More Info: At least The New York Post is thinking the same way I am. I don't think we're alone either...
First, I am not a doctor. There are no autopsy reports (yet). But initial reports that the boy died from falling and hitting his head in the bathroom after a seizure seems too suspicious to accept at face value. But even if that is the case, reports are now filtering in that the boy was not on any medication even though he seemed to suffer one big seizure every week.
The Travoltas have also said their son suffered from Kawasaki Syndrome, which he got from inhaling carpet cleaner when he was a toddler. Here’s some links to Kawasaki here and here, and in NONE of these places does it list an environmental cause like carpet cleaner. It largely affects the heart and arterial systems and does not cause seizures, although a heart attack could cause one, and that would show up in an autopsy.
But the 800 pound gorilla here that nobody is discussing is Scientology. Travolta and his family are Scientologists and largely disdain medicine, especially pharmaceutical drugs. Tom Cruise, another prominent Scientologist, is now more famous for disparaging medicine in a famous interview than his acting. How someone with only a high school could know more about medicine and biotechnology than the world’s top doctors and the entire pharmaceutical industry is a topic you can judge for yourself, but his views are largely in agreement with other Scientologists.
If it is discovered that Jett Travolta’s death could have been prevented by medication that his parents refused to give him, expect the contretemps on religion and Scientology to erupt again. And if that is indeed the case, I believe Travolta and his wife should be prosecuted.
More Info: At least The New York Post is thinking the same way I am. I don't think we're alone either...
Friday, January 02, 2009
YOU are a Special Interest!
One of the Pavlovian buzzwords that politicians and activists alike use to fire up the masses is “special interests.” Examples include, “Senator X is beholden to special interests,” or “As president, I will not answer to special interests,” and “It’s time we take Washington out of the pockets of special interests and give it back to the people!” The term special interests is rarely defined, but is generally meant to invoke shady back room deals by lobbyists, or paint a sinister insider group or association that controls the government while ignoring the people.
If you don’t follow politics or your democratic participation is limited to voting, then it all sounds good – take back the government and kick the special interests out of Washington! But guess what? You are not only a special person, but YOU are also a special interest! That’s right, the term “special interests” is not limited to unknown organizations and CEOs with deep pockets. If you write a letter to your Congressman or Senator telling them if they should vote for or against a bill, YOU are a special interest. If you belong to any group that tries to impact public policy – from a Chamber of Commerce to a union, and the NRA to the Sierra Club – YOU are a special interest. And if you speak out at your town’s Board of Selectmen meeting or call the mayor’s office to tell them your street is still unplowed, then YOU are being a special interest again.
Thanks to the First Amendment, anyone from a U.S. citizen to a Fortune 100 company has the right to address the government and tell it just how it feels about an issue. Do you want your neighbor to knock down his house and build a mega-mansion? If not, you have every right to request a change in zoning laws. You can even try and get your other neighbors to join you and start an organization, as strength in numbers make special interests even more special. If you are the CEO of a Fortune 100 company, and Congress is considering a bill that will force you to lose millions in revenue and lay off thousands of workers, you have every right to request a meeting with the chairman of the appropriate Congressional committee and tell them just that.
It’s easy for politicians and the media to deride special interests as what is ruining politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. “Special interests” sounds ominous, but addressing government from Washington to Town Hall is Democracy 101 in action. Any bill that is aimed at limiting special interests is doomed to fail on First Amendment grounds, as it well should. You may disagree with the NRA and want to limit their access to politicians, but would you also want to limit organizations like AARP or Greenpeace? Free speech is not discriminatory, and we are fortunate to live in a country where anyone has the right to address the government.
Perhaps another reason we hear about only certain types of special interests is because they are the ones most busy trying to influence the government. A new administration is coming to town in three weeks. It is going to do things much differently than the last one. It will make decisions that will impact every organization, company and person in America. Do you want to tell your Congressmen and Senators (who are representing YOU) what you think about this? They will correctly interpret your silence as neutrality or acquiescence. Or you can be a Special Interest, just like the ones you hear about, and tell them what they should know.
If you don’t follow politics or your democratic participation is limited to voting, then it all sounds good – take back the government and kick the special interests out of Washington! But guess what? You are not only a special person, but YOU are also a special interest! That’s right, the term “special interests” is not limited to unknown organizations and CEOs with deep pockets. If you write a letter to your Congressman or Senator telling them if they should vote for or against a bill, YOU are a special interest. If you belong to any group that tries to impact public policy – from a Chamber of Commerce to a union, and the NRA to the Sierra Club – YOU are a special interest. And if you speak out at your town’s Board of Selectmen meeting or call the mayor’s office to tell them your street is still unplowed, then YOU are being a special interest again.
Thanks to the First Amendment, anyone from a U.S. citizen to a Fortune 100 company has the right to address the government and tell it just how it feels about an issue. Do you want your neighbor to knock down his house and build a mega-mansion? If not, you have every right to request a change in zoning laws. You can even try and get your other neighbors to join you and start an organization, as strength in numbers make special interests even more special. If you are the CEO of a Fortune 100 company, and Congress is considering a bill that will force you to lose millions in revenue and lay off thousands of workers, you have every right to request a meeting with the chairman of the appropriate Congressional committee and tell them just that.
It’s easy for politicians and the media to deride special interests as what is ruining politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. “Special interests” sounds ominous, but addressing government from Washington to Town Hall is Democracy 101 in action. Any bill that is aimed at limiting special interests is doomed to fail on First Amendment grounds, as it well should. You may disagree with the NRA and want to limit their access to politicians, but would you also want to limit organizations like AARP or Greenpeace? Free speech is not discriminatory, and we are fortunate to live in a country where anyone has the right to address the government.
Perhaps another reason we hear about only certain types of special interests is because they are the ones most busy trying to influence the government. A new administration is coming to town in three weeks. It is going to do things much differently than the last one. It will make decisions that will impact every organization, company and person in America. Do you want to tell your Congressmen and Senators (who are representing YOU) what you think about this? They will correctly interpret your silence as neutrality or acquiescence. Or you can be a Special Interest, just like the ones you hear about, and tell them what they should know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)