I am hoping the senate

[samrock]

can improve the bill.. maybe add some more money for infrastructure repair .. and remove some extraneous garbage and make it so there will be no need to worry about a filibuster.. maybe even get some more votes in the house..

[notesdev]

1. It can improve it

by nuking it entirely and telling the House to put something together that isn't just a vehicle for feeding pork to legislators' districts.

One bill, one issue, that's the way legislation should work. Tying together a whole bunch of unrelated crap then bribing legislators to vote for it by adding earmarks is a crappy way of writing law.

[annabanana]

2. Please define "pork" for us...

Your understanding of the word is. . . . .

[notesdev]

3. "Pork" means

something that has no significant benefit to the country as a whole, that was just put in a bill so that the lawmaker whose district where the funds would go would vote for a piece of legislation.

[MineralMan]

4. Not every stimulus project needs to affect

the whole country. That would be impossible. Some projects that will be funded so that they can get started and hire people are local in nature. The idea is to get new jobs going to stimulate the economy and to fix infrastructure that has been left in bad shape too long.

That means roads, bridges, etc. Most of those affect only local folks.

[notesdev]

5. Context matters

If you appropriate funds for a program to build a bridge in Edge City, MT, and it has no direct relation to a particular national interest, that's pork.

If you appropriate funds for a program to improve the national infrastructure, and in the administration of that program it is decided that the best use of those funds in furtherance of the goal of improving national infrastructure includes a bridge in Edge City, MT, that is not pork.

It might not be immediately apparent, but the difference between the two ways of appropriating funds for that bridge is immense. The first way is arbitrary; the second is based on agreed rules and objectives, and can be justified on that basis. Being able to justify these expenses on the basis of an objective ruleset distinguishes legitimate spending from banana republic style 'favors for donors/buddies/friends'.

If there is no other, the one indisputable virtue of the Western tradition is that of the rule of law, where a person can reasonably predict how the coercive power of the state will be employed, and plan his own behavior in that context.

[stillcool]

6. building a bridge has no national interest?

You like bridges collapsing? If you don't want any 'pork' to fix the infrastructure, or create jobs in your state that's fine, lobby your representatives to vote no. My Senators, and my Congressman will be doing all they can to deliver 'pork' to my state, and I am very grateful that they care more about the people in my state, than tax-cuts.

[notesdev]

7. It depends on the bridge

building the infamous 'bridge to nowhere'... now what is the national interest in that?

[stillcool]

8. oh..so because some Republican crook..

used a bridge to extort funds, states with crumbling bridges should suffer?

[MineralMan]

9. Yes, context does matter, but

You've provided none. You have not pointed out a single aspect of this bill that fits your definition of "pork." If you want us to consider context, then you must provide some. You must demonstrate that the bridge in some town has no relevance to national issues. If, for example, that bridge is on a highway leading to an interstate highway, then your definition is not met. These days, few bridges do not have something to do with interstate commerce at some level.

So, again...provide some specific context, please.