And regarding federalism, when a Tennessee representative, say someone like Jim Cooper, earmarks something that his constituents (separate from lobbyists and other interest groups) have requested, say a new transit hub for MTA, that’s a local decision spending made with federal dollars, probably superseding the limited Metro budget. To give the decision-making to a single person over lots of local decisions of that variety is overstepping bounds, in my opinion.

I wouldn’t be dissatisfied if there were a more clear process for Metro to submit spending decisions to the state, which then submitted its own spending decisions to Congress, but I’m not sure that would wind up being any more representative. Especially for major urban areas, infrastructural projects require more dollars than are available from typical municipal revenue schemes. If those who lament federal largesse want to propose new ways to localize rather than eliminate spending, I’d consider it fairly.

Regarding the Line-item veto, you say, “I still say all voters ought to dog their representatives more in order to prevent a scenario where the President is making our local spending decisions for us.” It’s nice to see some assent to Federalism, but how does a Federal check, approved by the U.S. Congress, amount to a “local spending decision”?

I also supported him on McCain-Feingold, but I wasn’t crazy about how that got buried as far as a signing ceremony, especially when contrasted with the very public hubbub involving Schiavo.

This line-item veto legislation might not be as bad as in eras past, when the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I still say all voters ought to dog their representatives more in order to prevent a scenario where the President is making our local spending decisions for us. Isn’t rugged individualism about decentralization and states’ rights after all?

I don’t get too wrapped up in Bush-hating for the sake of needing someone to hate on, just as I don’t have a lot of respect for the water-carriers who admit that they had to carry water (read: Rush) for a congressional majority that wasn’t all that great. When the Democrats screw up (passing meek reforms with little to no opposition), I’ll be just as ready to cry foul.

And surely you supported Dubya on NCLB? Surely you supported him on McCain-Feingold? If not, you’re the one who doesn’t play well with others . . .

And regarding the line-item veto . . . I know that y’all really are concerned about the 4th Reich (I saw “The Darkside”!), but how is having it to isolate indefensible “compromises” a threat to the Republic?

In any event, it is GREAT to see that Democrats have changed their spots on ethics and gov’t spending, and you’ll have my full support for these reforms. Earmarks and Lobbyists weren’t invented by Republicans. It’s amazing the positive side-effects of bushating.

Earmarks are bad in my eyes because they are a bad budgeting practice. IMHO, every single dollar spent by every level of government should be justified and approved every single year. Things change. Priorities change.

The line item veto was so tempting because of the way omnibus budget bills are passed. Perhaps Congress could go to an online voting system, and every single spending item could be considered seperately? The current process just begs for abuse.

I am not against government spending per se, but I do think it should always be the funding of last resort. There are a few things that communities and nations can only do by resource pooling. Mass transit is a good example. However, MOST things government does (especially federal government) do not fall under this category, and we should look long and hard at alternatives before turning functions over to the national commune. Some, we may still want to do. But we should ALWAYS do them on purpose, not because a previous generation tied our hands. That’s why earmarks are always a bad idea.

BTW, I actually LIKE the idea of sidewalk advertising. If I ever get elected mayor, I’m gooing to implement it.