and Hawaii happens to host one of the premier sites for astronomy in the world - the Mauna Kea Observatory. http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/mko/

There probably are a lot of things that shouldn't be in the budget, but we never get a chance to consider them. All we hear about are the piggy sounding programs that really have merit when you scratch the surface.

I mean, you want to get rid of pork, how about nearly the entire AG bill.

Advice to Maureen Dowd: Never end one of your columns with This is excellent foppery. It's too obvious.

Steve Benen wrote: "It's just more intellectual laziness, and it's not pretty."

In the case of the fatuous and self-absorbed Maureen Dowd, it may indeed be "intellectual laziness". That's what she is known for, and what The New York Times pays her for, after all.

In the case of McCain and the other Congressional Republicans, it is deliberate malicious dishonesty and deceit. And that deliberate malicious dishonesty and deceit goes beyond railing against earmarked spending for programs that don't even exist.

First, earmarked spending makes up about ONE PERCENT of the budget.

Second, eliminating earmarks would not necessarily eliminate the spending itself. The same amount of money might be budgeted, for the same general sorts of purposes, but decisions about exactly where and how it would be spent would be made elsewhere than in Congress, e.g. by Federal agencies or state or local governments.

Third, Republicans are responsible for more earkmarked spending BY FAR than are Democrats -- even though Democrats outnumber them in the Congress.

There are legitimate reasons to reform or eliminate the practice of earmarks but the reasons given by the Republicans are not legitimate -- they are just more of the deliberate, malicious dishonesty and deceit which characterizes the Republican Party.

Dr. Paul Krugman recently pointed out on Kieth Olbermann's show that the GOP has become the party of Beavis and Butthead. They find something that sounds funny to them and giggle at it. That is pretty much the sum-total of their politics today.

Those pesky honey bees. Who knew they were the root of civilization?

The neocons wanted robotic, unthinking footsoldiers in Congress who would do what they were told without question, and they got them.

But now the robots have no guiding hand in power to tell them what to do and they have no idea how to do anything except attack and ridicule, even when it hurts their own political futures.

Oh, well, Rush-Daddy will save them. He knows the answers to everything, right?

(crickets)

Dowd wrote a decently good book picking on W Bush, but she's just a fluffy, high-paid Villige idiot like most of the rest.

You all might not have noticed this, but the States have the ability to fund tatoo-removal if they find it to be such a necessary program. It is ridiculous that the federal government is spending money on all these programs, even if they have value. Why? Because the States could have made the sacrifices necessary to fund them if they were truly needed. The old liberal line that, "if you don't want the federal government to do it, you must not anyone to do it" needs to be retired. There are other means through which one can pursue causes, such as getting funding for astronomy, besides the federal government.

I'd love it if the Dems suddenly pulled all their earmarked money and challenged the Repubs to do the same. The money could still be allocated as a lump sum to the individual states to spend. I think this would be a better approach anyway since each region knows the value of such programs as Volcano sensors and tatoo removal. This way it might not as easily turn into national politics.

I don't know about the astronomy program, either, though I do think there's a role for federal support of the sciences, even in silly-sounding places like Hawaii.

The Mauna Kea Observatory is on the "silly-sounding" big island. Haleakala Observatory is on "silly-sounding" Maui. Both are among the chief observing sites on the globe. And the University of Hawaii is home to the research-focused Institute for Astronomy.

McCain didn't know that when he complained about the "pork," and neither did Dowd when she added it to her column.

As Stefan has been pointing out lately, neither of them care. Money for gangs == bad!, never mind that it's money to get people out of gangs. They don't care if it works, it just makes a nice sound bite -- Twitter is perfect for these numbskulls -- so away they go.

What sucks in, it makes sense to scrutinize government spending, but these assholes' phony vigilance works against that goal with its rank dishonesty.

Dowd can DIAF.

There was once a senator that played the same game as McCain. His favorite target was NSF grant requests from which he could pull titles of proposed reseach that he could ridicule wihout the slighest effort at analysis of the research. Seemed to play well with the press and probably the public.

There are other means through which one can pursue causes, such as getting funding for astronomy, besides the federal government.

Could we pull the money out of your ass, or are you too busy extracting your opinions from it?

ok, "reason," i'll bite.

you're surely right that states could sponsor such spending. but that does not suggest why the federal government should not do so. (I hypothesize your real basis is a political belief -- if the spending decision were closer to home more knee-jerk anti-tax reaction could be ginned up and it would likely not pass).

but the response to the "let the states" decide argument is really quite simple: I propose that if Texas, for example, funds honeybee research, that no Texas bees be allowed to leave to pollinate plants in other states. And if Iowa does research on reducing the nuisance of pork operations, it gets to patent them so North Carolina and Nebraska can't benefit. And if Massachusetts funds certain health research, they keep it a secret - no helping save lives in other states!

This is, of course, both counterproductive and silly. The point of the federal government sposoring things like astronomy is that there is no unique benefit to Hawaii in knowledge of the galaxy - we all gain that knowledge, so we should all help pay for it. If Lousiana develops better technology for levees, other flood-prone areas will use that as well so why should Louisiana have to carry all the costs?

Seriously, this extreme state sovereignty position was fought for and lost back in the 1860s. We're a single country. Lets move on.

Because the States could have made the sacrifices necessary to fund them if they were truly needed.

Sadly, no. Most states have a balanced-budget amendment that forces them to depend on the largesse of the Federal government when times are tight. As they are now. Even if funding tattoo removal programs for former gang members is a really great idea, it's unlikely that any state could afford to do so at the expense of (for example) paying its own employees. Government spending should be countercyclical, but state governments can't do it anymore.

The old liberal line that, "if you don't want the federal government to do it, you must not anyone to do it" needs to be retired.

This is not an "old liberal line" I've ever heard. Perhaps we know different old liberals.

There are other means through which one can pursue causes, such as getting funding for astronomy, besides the federal government.

Again, sadly, no. The Market doesn't do things because they're good ideas that make our lives collectively better; the Market does things because it can make money doing them. Many things worth doing, even necessary to do, do not make money. Because they benefit the public, though, it's appropriate for government to step in to fund those things.

Remember the scorn poured on midnight basketball in the Clinton era? I thought at the time "what else are those kids going to be doing at midnight? Will we like it better?"

Come on. These senators didn't even bother to read the evidence against Iraq for us to go to war before they (McAce especially) plunged us into that morass. What makes any clear thinker think that McAce (or the rest of the repugs) would be willing to read earmark funding requests that might have some real benefit to middle class America. Iraq sure didn't. Nauseating...

To Jeff in Ohio:
As a matter of fact, our civilization does depend upon honeybees. How do you think many of our commercial crops are pollinated? Have you not heard of the problems caused by dramatic die-offs in the bee population?

In the case of McCain and the other Congressional Republicans, it is deliberate malicious dishonesty and deceit. -- Secular Animist, @13:16

Nah... In the case of Big Mac, it's just envy. When Cindy realised that the text which he acquired in the military no longer read "super dick", not even on wedding anniversaries... That it was, permanently, shrunk to "sick"... She made him remove the tattoo. And he had to pay for it himself.

c'mon aaron and zeitgeist: leave something for the rest of us to say!

so all you leave me as scraps is to point out to reason that states are constitutionally bound to balance their budgets, and that means that even programs that states would like to carry out can't be funded.

And my compliments to those of you who had the patience to explain to reason what he or she already knows but refuses to accept. I get so tired of trolls' non-stop repetition of points that have been debunked here over and over again.

once again: it's hard work bein' a republican

and it's really hard fuckin' work bein' maw-REIN

reason (heh) above completely missies the point, either accidentally or on purpose. McCain and other hacks are not mocking tattoo removal and volcano monitoring because such things are obviously better funded at the state level.

When Jindal talked about "something called volcano monitoring," I'm sure reason's first reactions was to laugh out loud: "Ha. Everyone knows volcano monitoring doesn't belong in a federal bill! That should be funded by the states. Good one, Jindal!" However, most people assumed he was simply mocking the program, regardless of how it was funded.

Seriously, reason, if Republicans think such issues are for the states, let them make that case instead of simply mocking worthwhile programs that can be made to sound silly.

@c in n, I'd be surprised if Jeff in Ohio weren't speaking ironically. I don't know that many people who use the word "pesky" when they're not being facetious.

Damn, there isn't even a small bit of "reason"'s argument left in that smoking crater for me. :-(

I just don't think those things belong in a federal bill. And if the states can't pay for them without balancing their budgets, then I guess we don't need them. There are always contributions from private donors if you want something that bad. Let George Soros pay for it.

I'm waiting for some Democratic congressperson to propose that each state receive federal funding for infrastructure projects in proportion to that state's contribution to federal revenue. (Presently, most red states get more than they give, while most blue states give more than they get back.) All the red-state Republicans would start clawing for federal dollars then.

texas is one of the worst states when it comes to accurate human health/sex education in the country and tops the list when it comes to teen pregnancy and STDs.

ask texans whether they even know how much more they are paying to support pregnant teens and treat STDs because they insist on teaching their kids that condoms are stupid and there is no such thing as safe sex.

nope, it's much better to stick to your ridiculous principles and pay through the nose than to recognize the realities of life.

I just don't think those things belong in a federal bill.

Whoa -- I'm convinced!

There are always contributions from private donors if you want something that bad.

Sadly, no. We already tried that route -- having science dependent on the largesse of private patrons. Then we had the Enlightenment, although your mode of thinking seems to predate that.

And if the states can't pay for them without balancing their budgets, then I guess we don't need them.

Why? Because your pet idea (rooted in nothing) that the Federal government not spend tax money trumps actual national life and death concerns like food pollination and disaster monitoring?

Let George Soros pay for it.

Yes, we definitely want our national welfare dependent upon the whims of private donors, who could use it for blackmail and leverage of our elected officials more than corporations already do.

Genius.

if the states can't pay for them without balancing their budgets, then I guess we don't need them.

So if states can't pay for police without balancing their budgets, I guess we don't need them either.

Jackass.

Gregory beat me to it by 60 seconds. And I almost used "largesse." I knew I shouldn't have taken the time to check my spelling.

Let George Soros pay for it.

Now would be a good time to remind "reason" that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does.

Jackass.

zeitgeist:

"but the response to the "let the states" decide argument is really quite simple: I propose that if Texas, for example, funds honeybee research, that no Texas bees be allowed to leave to pollinate plants in other states. And if Iowa does research on reducing the nuisance of pork operations, it gets to patent them so North Carolina and Nebraska can't benefit. And if Massachusetts funds certain health research, they keep it a secret - no helping save lives in other states!"

By zeitgeist's logic, we should have the federal government fund every good deed because someone other than the doer of the deed benefits.

Aaron:

"Sadly, no. Most states have a balanced-budget amendment that forces them to depend on the largesse of the Federal government when times are tight. As they are now."

Which means that governments will have to do something frightening: make priorities with regards to spending. The point of making priorities is not deciding which programs are worthwhile. The point of making priorities is deciding which programs are worthwhile enough to be funded at the expense of other economic pursuits.

Aaron:

"The Market doesn't do things because they're good ideas that make our lives collectively better; the Market does things because it can make money doing them. Many things worth doing, even necessary to do, do not make money. Because they benefit the public, though, it's appropriate for government to step in to fund those things."

It is true the profit incentive drives the Market. But the idea that the Market and the Federal Government are the only actors in society is false. There are other actors, such as State and local government, charities and nonprofits, churches and private schools. The choice between an unsustainable Big Government and corporate anarchism is a false one.

Howard:

"...states are constitutionally bound to balance their budgets, and that means that even programs that states would like to carry out can't be funded."

Well, of course, Howard. "Liking" a program is not enough of an impetus to justify funding a program. A program must be of great enough importance to be funded. The role of government is to make decisions regarding these priorities. Should we not expect the States to bear some of the responsibility for such decision-making? Or should we simply have a small intellectual elite in Washington, D.C. make all the decisions?

All of these comments against any sort of federalism seem to be based on the assumption that, if a program is desired, it must be necessary, and all other concerns, such as the national debt or the division of decision-making authority, must be considered to be irrelevant.

Another fallacy that all of these assumptions are based on is that if both the Republican and Democratic Parties engage in a particular practice, such as pork-barrel spending or deficit spending, then the practice is just and thus cannot be criticized.

I just don't think those things belong in a federal bill. And if the states can't pay for them without balancing their budgets, then I guess we don't need them. There are always contributions from private donors if you want something that bad. Let George Soros pay for it.

You're pretty much admitting that you don't know a hell of a lot about fundraising.

Go educate yourself.

Oh, and if someone wishes to impersonate me by writing under the name I am writing under, they should spell it correctly: "reason", not "reson". I assure you I would not demand any sort of special punishment towards George Soros.

The taxpaying public, many of whom has lost jobs and is seeing the value of their savings decrease daily, is not much in the mood for funding spending that is not clearly private sector job creation no matter how well intentioned the spending might be.

It's just more intellectual laziness, and it's not pretty.

It might not be pretty, but intellectual laziness is really all we ought to expect from the party of GWB, Newt, + Limbaugh.

-Z

Oh, and if someone wishes to impersonate me by writing under the name I am writing under, they should spell it correctly: "reason", not "reson"

But that would be handlejacking. This is parody.

reason wrote: "The old liberal line that, 'if you don't want the federal government to do it, you must not anyone to do it' needs to be retired."

Whatever you meant by that garbled nonsense, you should definitely tell it to the "liberal" Congressional Republicans who are responsible for far more earmarked spending in the current budget than are Democrats.

Emma Anne

I agree with you that there was some social benefit to funding midnight basketball. But everyone who is asked to pay for these things would really like to see those kids sleeping at midnight and getting up and studying so they can get a good job.

Given the sacrifices they are making to educate their own children who don't need or want midnight basketball, it's hard to blame them for being frustrated. I don't have any answers for some of the problems in the inner city. I do know that my neighborhood never saw the type of federal dollars coming into it that are coming there now - now that it is 95% hispanic. Every municipality surrounding this community is having problems balancing their budget. Not this one, which is awash in federal funds and is seeing housing development targetted for Section 8 recipients. Has too much gang activity that is spilling over into surrounding communities. The money being spent by the taxpayer doesn't seem to help.

You guys have to start looking at both sides.

But that would be handlejacking. This is parody.

Gah! And I fell for it. For shame.

Shorter Mary OK: Won't someone think of the children?!

Also: The taxpaying public, many of whom has lost jobs and is seeing the value of their savings decrease daily, is not much in the mood for funding spending that is not clearly private sector job creation no matter how well intentioned the spending might be.

I'll stipulate you feel this way -- all the time, I'll wager -- but as to the taxpaying public? Cite, please.

If someone wants to impersonate me, they should do it on their own blog.

reason, states do not set the condition of the economy.

and states, by and large, are regressive in their tax patterns.

because they don't set the conditions of the economy and can't deficit finance, they must respond to a downturn in revenue immediately regardless of whether the cut makes any sense to the citizens of the state (for example, california recently - and this was extreme, admittedly - had to stop a whole series of construction projects that were safety-oriented because of the state financial crisis. those projects, in fact, have to proceed, and now that there is a budget resolution, they are going to proceed: in the interim, the state gets to pay demobilization and remobilization costs).

and because of the regressive nature of state taxes, with their particularly heavy reliance on sales tax, increasing taxes in the short run is truly counterproductive.

so i'm not sure how your comment is responsive: there is nothing new about the realization that states have special problems during recessions that justify federal actions.

the rest of your comment is a complete and total straw man, which tends to undercut any notion that you are serious in the first place.

since the modern era of budget deficits was launched, during lbj's time in office, there has been one party which, when in the white house, has behaved in a fiscally responsible way and one that has not. pretending they both behave in the same way is simply not on.

as a small but telling example: when confronted with a choice between his ambitions and the fiscal value of moving to a surplus, clinton shelved his ambitions.

when confronted with a choice between paying for the war in iraq and borrowing for the war in iraq, not only did bush and the gop borrow for the war in iraq, they made a major plank of their argument against kerry in 2004 that he had actually wanted to pay for the war in iraq rather than float it.

so let's not play pretend games about wanting something being the sole criteria: that's bu(sh)it.

"reason" -- the real one this time -- wrote: By zeitgeist's logic, we should have the federal government fund every good deed because someone other than the doer of the deed benefits.

There's a difference between doing good deeds and promoting the general welfare. Here's a hint -- one of them is listed in the Constitution as a legitimate function of the Federal Government.

Jackass.

when confronted with a choice between paying for the war in iraq and borrowing for the war in iraq, not only did bush and the gop borrow for the war in iraq, they made a major plank of their argument against kerry in 2004 that he had actually wanted to pay for the war in iraq rather than float it.

Not only that, but Bush each and every year ran the war off the books with "emergency budget supplementals," so he could pretend that the war he was financing with a tax cut didn't add to the deficit.

On top of that, Bush instituted a number of accounting gimmicks to hide the scope of the deficts he was running, which trickery Obama is honest enough to end, so he can be rewarded by loony libertarians like "reason" kvetching.

Jackass.

So because Bush was a deficit spender it's perfectly okay for Obama to keep it up? I didn't like it when Bush did it, either. In retrospective, perhaps I should have said something then. But having learned my lesson with Bush, now I feel compelled to speak up.

So, Reason, if people want certain programs, even say, a majority of people, and they chose (or say, elect) people to represent them to institute those programs, and say, some of those representatives bring some federal tax money back home for those various projects, then that's bad?

Where I come from, we call that doing their damn job.

Do you even understand how representative democracy works? Your comments suggest you do not, but at least you're not alone; McCain's frequent battle cries against earmarks show he doesn't understand what his job is any more than you do. It's even more ironic if you know that Arizona gets back $1.19 for every $1.00 it pays in federal taxes, but I guess it's okay with McCain when the charity is his home state.

If you want to rail against earmarks, fine. I live in a solidly blue state that provides welfare to red and purple states. We'd like our earmark money back, thank you very much.

Steve wrote yesterday about certain phrases or tacks that are 'conversation enders.' When someone rails against the very nature of our federal government as a way of attacking the programs of the current administration, I'd say the conversation is over.

So because Bush was a deficit spender it's perfectly okay for Obama to keep it up? I didn't like it when Bush did it, either. In retrospective, perhaps I should have said something then. But having learned my lesson with Bush, now I feel compelled to speak up.

You aren't fooling me this time, naughty person.

Loony libertarians never admit they might be wrong.

So, Reason, if people want certain programs, even say, a majority of people, and they chose (or say, elect) people to represent them to institute those programs, and say, some of those representatives bring some federal tax money back home for those various projects, then that's bad?

It is if "reason" disagrees with those programs and -- gasp! -- is taxed to pay for them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- loony libertarians are completely ignorant of social contract political philosophy going back to Hobbes. They think Hobbes' "war of all against all" in which life is "nasty, brutish and short" is ideal, because they, rugged individualists all, would surely be on top of the heap.

Jackasses.

>Should we not expect the States to bear some of the responsibility for such decision-making? Or >should we simply have a small intellectual elite in Washington, D.C. make all the decisions?

so which southern state are you from?

From Rush Limbaugh's talking points to John McCain's mouth to Mowdy Doody's snarky little typing fingers, without so much as a nanosecond's pause at anybody's brain.

It's amusing that Dowd sneered at studies of grape DNA. I wouldn't expect her to care that wine grapes are vital to the economy of California and important to a lot of other states as well, but didn't someone whisper to her that a grape blight might (gasp) cut off the supply of Champagne to Versailles?

Speaking of people who claim to criticize the spending sins of all parties but forgot to mention their concerns during the Bush administration, has Will Allen finally died of one of his continual paroxysms of rage? We haven't had one of his obsessive 20-hour rants since the election, have we?

And another thought: why does McCain hate astronomy? During the campaign he heaped scorn on the purchase of a projector for a Chicago planetarium. God forbid some Chicago schoolkids might become fascinated with science and want to learn more! Now, not content with attacking planetaria, he wants to go after observatories that study the actual night sky. What could we possibly learn from that, after all? What did Galileo, Einstein or NASA contribute to civilization?

It's not surprising that the man who courted the oogety-boogety religious vote would sneer at DNA research. It is, after all, powerful evidence for evolution. But astronomy? Well, yes, I suppose -- the big bang, and all that. Better keep your children indoors at night before they all become atheists and Communists.

In some ways, I'm sympathetic to reason's libertarian views. But libertarian thinking falls apart once a cost or benefit crosses a state line. And it also falls apart when a large infrastructure must be maintained for infrequent reasons. Consider FEMA, which most libertarians believe should be handled at the state level. The advantage of handling disaster management at the federal level is that the same resources can be used more often. The same people handling a hurricane in Florida can handle an earthquake in California two months later, and then a tornado in Kansas after that, flooding in Missouri after that, and so on. The libertarians somehow think it is better to have 50 FEMA-sized bureaucracies that rarely do anything than one FEMA-sized bureaucracy that can stay pretty busy all year by moving around the country as needed. Their desire for small government conflicts with their desire for local government.

But it's just as bad when costs and benefits cross state lines. The state of Texas has no incentive to do bee research on its own. In fact, it has a disincentive to do so. The reason is that it is impossible to contain information. If Texas taxes its farmers to pay for this research, those Texas farmers pay for all the costs. Farmers in Iowa, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and everywhere else will get the same benefits as the Texas farmers, but they'll get those benefits for free. This gives all non-Texas farmers a competitive advantage over Texas farmers. Now why would the State of Texas or its farmers want to do that? Obviously they wouldn't, which is why this research needs to be done at the federal level.

But the tattoo removal program is a little different, isn't it? The benefits are pretty much contained in California. Or are they? The $150K cost to the feds obviously doesn't come close to paying for the tattoo removal for every ex-gang member in California. It sounds like the feds aren't really paying for the program, but are paying to study the effectiveness of the program. That information will benefit everyone, so it does make sense for the feds to collect and analyze the data.

During the campaign he heaped scorn on the purchase of a projector for a Chicago planetarium. God forbid some Chicago schoolkids might become fascinated with science and want to learn more!

He called it an "overhead projector," yes. It's a little more sophisticated than that -- but McCain's not.

I agree with you that there was some social benefit to funding midnight basketball. But everyone who is asked to pay for these things would really like to see those kids sleeping at midnight and getting up and studying so they can get a good job.

I'd like everyone in the country to have their own pony sprinkled with fairy dust. Surprisingly, life doesn't actually work that way and kids who come from single parent families where their mother is working 18 hours a day tend to need a little bit of direction and assistance.

I know you love to think that you came from nothing and had no help from anyone else ever in your life, but really. Did you go to private schools or public schools? Did you build your own roads and sewers? Did you personally lay the power lines that ran to your house so you would have light to do your homework at night? Did you purchase every book you ever used to write a paper, or did you use a library? If not, that means that a whole lot of people pooled their money together so you could have those things that helped you out in life.

Try not to be so childish.

The $150K cost to the feds obviously doesn't come close to paying for the tattoo removal for every ex-gang member in California.

More likely it's an extremely bloated estimate of what it would take. I could de-ink every gang member in California myself with $20 for some hydrochloric acid.

I'd like everyone in the country to have their own pony sprinkled with fairy dust. -Mnemosyne

Arlen Specter had that stripped from the stimulus bill. I was going to name mine Poochie.

We haven't had one of his obsessive 20-hour rants since the election, have we?

If memory serves me right, I've seen The Will Allen Show over at Mayy Yglesias' place, but not since the election.

Too bad, too -- I've been positively itching to bring up certified hero and union/regulation advocate "Sully" Sullenberger to mock, once again, Allen's notion that pilots, whose useless jobs are preserved only by those dastardly unions, should be replaced by machines.

But hey, shortstop, be fair -- Will Allen's false equivalencies and pass-giving to Republicans extends to all perceived Democratic sins, not just budgetary ones.

If memory serves me right, he first came to notice by claiming that it was hypocritical to be outraged by Bush's torture policies because some jackass Democratic state politico joked about prison rape. Good times, good times...

It's difficult for McCain to shake this label. After all, his picture still resides next to "intellectual laziness" in the dictionary.

Mnemosyne

You are the one who is childish. If you think it is nothing but a fairy tale to have more than 50% of the people in this country affluent enough to pay some federal tax for the services they receive, than there is no hope. This country's best days are behind us. If the only way we can support our services are to get the majority of it from the wealthies 5%, why we are already a third world nation.

The idea that the best we can do to improve the lot of our citizens is to support midnight basketball is shocking. You clearly want to use government programs to opiate the masses because they are not capable of anything more.

Poor Mary Ok, moving from 126% black Chicago to 153% Hispanic California must feel like moving from the rain to under a spout. And yet, she managed to remain a lifelong Democrat...

If you think it is nothing but a fairy tale to have more than 50% of the people in this country affluent enough to pay some federal tax for the services they receive

Income tax. Much more than 50% of the population -- and a good chunk of the non-affulent -- pay FICA and other Federal taxes. You've been corrected on this point time and again, so the only conclusion from your repeating this bit of Republican propaganda is that you aren't arguing in good faith. Imagine our surprise.

And that's the problem with cherry-picking earmarks for the purpose of ridicule.

No, Steve, that's the point of cherry-picking earmarks for the purpose of ridicule. You don't consider the utility of the program before mocking it, and you hope to assure that your listener doesn't, either.

What did Galileo, Einstein or NASA contribute to civilization?

Well, Galileo had that silly thought that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. Blasphemer. Einstein came up with some "Theory" of Relativity (must be like a tenuous guess or something) and NASA still tries to convince that the Earth is not flat and we landed on the moon (yeah, right)
--Love, The Republicans.

The question is not whether the earmarks are useful. Instead, what lawmakers should be asking is whether or not the particular earmark should be part of a huge stimulus bill that the President and Pelosi are telling everybody to hurry up and vote for, even before they've had a chance to read it.

Mary OK wrote: "The taxpaying public, many of whom has lost jobs and is seeing the value of their savings decrease daily, is not much in the mood for funding spending that is not clearly private sector job creation no matter how well intentioned the spending might be."

Under Obama's plan, 95 percent of the taxpaying public will get a tax cut. Do you think they are in the mood for that? I do.

Under Obama's plan, the richest Americans will see their tax rates go back to what they were during the Clinton administration -- a time when the AFTER-TAX incomes of the richest Americans skyrocketed -- by allowing the huge Bush tax cuts to expire on the scheduled date that Bush and the Republicans wrote into law when the tax cuts were enacted. Obama is only doing exactly what the Republicans said should be done when they passed those tax cuts.

Do you think the 95 percent of the taxpaying public who are struggling as you describe are in the mood to see the huge tax cuts for the ultra-rich expire in 2011, just as Bush originally proposed? I do.

Mary OK wrote: "If the only way we can support our services are to get the majority of it from the wealthiest 5%, why we are already a third world nation."

It's true that the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny, ultra-rich minority in the USA is more comparable to that of "third world nations" -- where a tiny, corrupt, mostly hereditary, ultra-rich oligarchy rules over a population of impoverished, indentured serfs -- than to the more equitable distribution of wealth in most other modern, industrialized democracies.

But that's what we have, as the direct result of decades of so-called "conservative" policies designed to enrich and empower the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

So, to raise revenues to pay for essential services, it is necessary to tax the people who have a grossly disproportionate share of the country's wealth and income.

Really, your complaints make no sense at all to me.

Tod wrote: "... what lawmakers should be asking is whether or not the particular earmark should be part of a huge stimulus bill that the President and Pelosi are telling everybody to hurry up and vote for, even before they've had a chance to read it ..."

What you should be asking yourself is why you think this discussion is about the stimulus bill, which already passed, after everyone had plenty of time to read it, and which contained no earmarks, exactly as Obama promised -- when in reality what is being discussed is the omnibus spending bill, which the lawmakers obviously do have time to read since they are already discussing the details of all the earmarks it contains, most of which were put into the bill by Republicans?

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are repeating bogus, scripted talking points that are being spoon-fed to you by people who want to deceive you?

reason:

"But the idea that the Market and the Federal Government are the only actors in society is false. There are other actors, such as State and local government, charities and nonprofits, churches and private schools."

Oh, bullshit, you can't tell us with a straight face you'd supoport spending at other levels of government, just not at the federal level. You're probably bitching and moaning on your local newspaper's website everyday about government programs you don't like. So don't act like you and all the other douchebags who place party loyalty and individual wealth over country really would like these programs paid by someone else. It's bullshit and I'm really getting tired of these bullshit arguments made on bad faith and zero knowledge of the subject.

The taxpaying public ... is not much in the mood for funding spending that is not clearly private sector job creation no matter how well intentioned the spending might be.

How do I put this delicately? You don't speak for "the taxpaying public." The taxpaying public have vested their Congressional representatives with the authority to make decisions on their behalf, including decisions like these that happen to benefit that taxpaying public. You don't like it? Get a new representative.

Moreover, all of this money does, in fact, create or preserve jobs, so your argument is moot.

By zeitgeist's logic, we should have the federal government fund every good deed because someone other than the doer of the deed benefits.

By your "logic," we should never have the federal government fund necessary programs because someone else always, in theory, can. Your entire argument, thus far, is that you appear to dislike federal spending. That's not an argument; come back when you've actually got a point to make.

You are the one who is childish.

LOL... Pot, kettle, black.

If you think it is nothing but a fairy tale to have more than 50% of the people in this country affluent enough to pay some federal tax for the services they receive, than there is no hope.

You do love repeating that lie, don't you? And yes, it is a lie, and yes, you know it is a lie, and yet here you are, mindlessly repeating it. Tell us again: why should we take you seriously? Why should we not treat you as the troll you are?

The idea that the best we can do to improve the lot of our citizens is to support midnight basketball is shocking.

ROFL.... And if anyone had said that, you might have a point. Sadly for you, nobody did, so you're left with an idiotic strawman argument.

You clearly want to use government programs to opiate the masses because they are not capable of anything more.

Oh, yes, that just *so* follows from everything that has been said here.

Moron.

If you think it is nothing but a fairy tale to have more than 50% of the people in this country affluent enough to pay some federal tax for the services they receive, than there is no hope.

Out of curiosity, if I don't pay any federal tax, then why did I have to pay the IRS $600 last year even though I make under $40,000? Was that money imaginary? Did the IRS ask for it as a joke and then use it to buy pizza?

If that $600 paid to the IRS wasn't a federal tax, what was it?

You mean to tell me you guys actually take Maureen Dowd seriously?

Please, she's not worth the wasted bandwidth. Ignore her and she'll eventually go away.

Someone is surprised when Modo proceeds to proove what the term "bimbo airhead" means???