[Grovenet] An interesting view of a legacy . . .

[Katie Allnutt]

As far as earmarks go, I think the statement about earmarks being  
continued wholesale is a bit of an exaggeration.  While they have not  
been eliminated, they are down in number and value by close to half  
of their recent (ie Republican controlled congress) peak.  But the  
real important part, and this may explain their improvement, under  
recent congressional action, earmarks are no longer anonymous.  They  
have to have the sponsor's name attached to it.  Accountability is  
what is driving them down.

But don't think that those comments are to be interpreted as praise  
of a democratically controlled congress. Democrats are no angels when  
it comes to earmarks and they could at most be considered less  
devilish than their counterparts.  The real credit goes to the good  
citizens of the US who have bothered to write to their congressional  
representatives and expressed a concern about earmarks.  We, the  
people, control congress when we pay attention.
It is the people who bother to carry signs (thank you Walt) and get  
others involved who should get the credit for the incremental  
improvements that have taken place over the last few months.

As more and more people participate in the primaries and campaigning  
over the coming months we are likely to see a big improvement in the  
performance of congress.  Unfortunately it will be counter balanced  
by a lot of political posturing as well, but right after the  
elections there will likely be a clear signal from us regular folks  
to the representatives on capital hill about what we expect.  IT is  
up to us collectively to make our voices count.

Katie



On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Steven wrote:

> Are you fine with neocons, reactionaries, bigots,
> chickenhawks and the assorted other frauds and fakers who have  
> hijacked the
> progressive label?
> Under democrat control, congress has continued their earmarks  
> wholesale.
> (I'm assuming all your adjectives are meant for politicians, rather  
> than be
> bigoted enough to spread it to every one you disagree with.)
>
> If conserving the accomplishments of the past is a good idea, why  
> do we need
> to change it so much?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
> Behalf Of Walt Wentz
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 8:27 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] An interesting view of a legacy . . .
>
>
>> Walt,
>>
>>
>> Welcome to Grovenet.
>>
>> You are going to fit right in.
>>
>> Name calling and disparaging, immature remarks directed to  
>> Conservatives
> are
>> not only accepted but encouraged here!
>>
>> Steve
>
> Hi Steve:
> Well, I've got no problem with real conservatives-- that is, people
> who want to "conserve" the great accomplishments of the past.
> However, I'm not at all fond of neocons, reactionaries, bigots,
> chickenhawks and the assorted other frauds and fakers who have
> hijacked the conservative label, and who obsessively destroy the
> great accomplishments of our past for the sake of a little transient
> power for themselves, and added profits for their corporate sponsors.
> Since ridicule is the only real weapon we mere common folk have
> against these hi-falutin' looters, then let the slapstick swing and
> the brickbats fly!
> Walt
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet