You are the one dodging the issue.

Yes, “wasteful spending” is hated by everyone.

But defining “wasteful spending” is not easy.

For example, famr subsidies – in my opinion – are a CLEAR example of “wasteful spending.”

I’ll bet you would not agree.

Yes, everyone hates “bridges to nowhere.”

But in Alaska, that bridge could be big boost to town’s economy, generating jobs and opportunities.

That is the way Alaskans are going to see it, even if I don’t.

But back to the point: there is no policy that you are able to name that commands overwhelming public support that is not being acted by government in one form or another.

conclusion: government is not unresponsive (but it is irresponsible).

By your logic, anything bad that happens to you is what you deserve. Well, I happen to know absolutely and irrefutably that that is not true.

Besides that, you generalize, lumping the rest of us in with your self-assesment. Well, not all of us fit your profile. Many of us do not. There are always exceptions to the rule: generalizations are always wrong.

“Pork barrel spending.”

You are right that few people support “pork barrel sending.”

What about federal money to refurbish your local library? Or build a nearby museum? Or money to fix that local rickety bridge? Money to keep your local PBS station on the air?

I’ll bet even you would support those things, eh?

Most people support those things, and they generally pressure politicians to get them. They tend to be louder – much louder – than the people who argue that those should be the responsibilty of LOCAL taxpayers.

You see, it is not that government is unresponsive. It is responsive to the groups that make the most noise. The problem with government is that it is UNRESPONSIBLE.

When you have built bridges, libraries and bike trails in every district in Congress, you have a spending problem.

Our spending problem in Congress is kind of like the person who knows it is wrong to run up his credit cards, but does it anyway because he can’t control his impulses.

That – btw – is a very common trait among American voters.

That is why I say: we have gotten the government we deserve.

Cherish that example, for I am loathe to respond to challenges.

How about Illegal Immigration? Plenty of people are incensed about this and yet politicians do little more than pay it lip service.

Illegal immigration is a problem, not a policy prescription.

Significant numbers of Americans favor guest worker programs nad periodic amnesties. A good number favor forced deportations. Some want to leave things as they are. Some want walls, some want militia patrols along the border.

No one policy commands overwhelming support.

If anything like a public consensus develops on what needs to be done, politicians will jump all over it.

Your summary of our govenmnt is depressingly apt. There is certainly plenty of sleaze to go around. But that is the government America deserves: we expect the government to do everything.(the federal government did nothing after a hurricane destroyed Galveston, for example).

Naturally, corporations try to get politicans tend send money their way, and politicians blatantly use the treasury to buy votes for themselves.

Someday cutting the pork from our budget will not be an option; it will be our only option.

I’m curious about you contention that farm subsidy programs are for the common good. Can you explain how that works with sugar, where sugar is so expensive in the US that we can’t even afford to put it in cola? Or pineapples? Or timber?

Why do we subsidize the farmer who grows rice or soybeans, but not the farmer produces eggs?

Has allowing the free market to reign in egg production worked so badly? (FYI: eggs are pretty cheap and plentiful).

Shea: here’s a deal: you give me an issue that commands overwhelming public support and is being ignored by politicians of both parties, and I will produce the polling data (to prove you wrong, actually).

There is no issue that fits that bill. Such an issue would be a huge political opportunity to whatever politicans embraced it.

(Be sure to give a specific policy. For example, don’t just say “people hate the war.” Say something like “a large majority of people want an immediate, unconditional withdrawal” (which is not true – yet).)

Jet- I plan to address those very issues in this series of essays. And, no, we can’t expect the current crop of pwoer brokers to easily capitulate…that is why the apathy must end and the voices must form a cohesive, forceful movement towards returning the governing capabilities to the people, for the benefit of the people. Always good to hear from you Jet.

Windspike- I suppose that is the unspoken question, isn’t it. Let us agree though that government SHOULD BE for the people. of the people, and by the people. Now we just have to get the people to remember this and exercise their right to self-government.
As always, an insightful comment that is apprecisted.

John- I tend to both agree and disagree. I don’t think the average American wants the government we have, not when the corruption and ineffectiveness is laid bare, as happened with Hurricane Katrina. But I would agree that we get what we deserve, in light of widespread apathy.

For every thing you say people want, there are those who want the opposite. Government should have more clearly defined parameters within which it works and society needs to understand that policies that target one group for either benefit or punishment ultimately don’t benefit the group as a whole, if only because of what you say- they each always want more. Soon we have people fighting over the limited resources of the group, and in the end, we get little or nothing of what we say we want while the corporations, unions, and politicians get their way each and every time.

I don’t really distinguish between these types of politicians as you surmise, but accept the fact that both types of maneuvers are designed to either maintain power for powers sake or gain personal wealth at the expense of the tax payer. Both are antithetical to what a true public servant should do. Yes, they should look out for individual interests, and promote economic activity, but to a degree and without thinking of personal benefit. Those that choose power over service are not public servants or leaders in any sense of the word.

Your test answer? Both are riddled with fraud and waste and abuse, but their basic premises (transportation infrastructure and safety and lower food costs/higher farm profit margins) are designed with some public benefit in mind. They are subverted though by the pork barrel politics that has become business as usual for politics.

But does politics have to be synonymous with government or could government be enacted with more altruistic ambitions?

As for the fiscal conservatives…where are they? And what about the fiscal liberals (yes, they exist.)? Sad truth is that fiscal responsibility is in sort supply these days. The only “I told you so’s” will be coming from the people who can see through the fraud of both sides of the aisle.

(I know your comments continue…I will adress them in turn.)

Shea- As you and John have a separate (but related) debate, I will address only those comments you pose to me…I think that electoral rules need to be overhauled and I’ll be offering some ideas of my own. But elections, though the most important means of giving voice, are not the only way to be heard.
I’m not sure how things can really get much worse…just more known.

John- How about Illegal Immigration? Plenty of people are incensed about this and yet politicians do little more than pay it lip service. They are not addressing it in any real way at all, aside from the occasional press release of a bill being sent to a committee. Rarely does the bill make it out, or was it intended to be anything more than a press release put into the public record for a future reference in a future campaign.

And shouldn’t we all be in the same line, at least pretty much?

George- Obsolete? I don;t think so. In need of revisions. Definitely. (Read the header quote on this blog to see that this isn’t really a new idea, just one whose time has come again.) Thanks for stopping by.

Just Wandering- In todays world, they only have to pretend to listen. Apathy assures that the facade is good enough. We can and should do better, expect better, demand better. Glad to have your comments here.

RuKsaK & BonJ- I assume that your comments were tongue in cheek to satirize my point, but apathy is a scourge on self-determination. Words are not enough when they become a distortion of themselves at the detriment of society. At some point, action must occur, change must happen, but whether that change is for the betterment or worsening of our freedom and liberty is yet to be known.

Shea- Interesting debate between you and John. Nice to have these comment sections facilitate adult conversation. John, I believe the reply is now yours….

You can’t, and that’s becuase there aren’t any.”

You have access accurate polling data to back up a claim like that? If I had that kind of data, then I am confident I could find an issue that fits the criteria you describe. Unfortunately, I don’t, and I suspect, neither do you (no offense intended, just clarifying the issue here).