Go read it.
I take this to mean that you know him personally. Is that true, Ms. Becks? Have all y'all "gone DC?" For the record, I only link to people I can't stand personally.
1 - I do, in fact, know Ryan, you little shit. I told you to go read him not because I'm pimping my friend but because otherwise I'd be excerpting his entire post. And I'm busy yelling at people at work.
not because I'm pimping my friend but because otherwise I'd be excerpting his entire post
We're supposed to trust your introspective report? No, I don't think so. I don't think so at all.
I love the Becks 'n' Ogged Show.
I can't wait for LB's walk-on as the cranky neighbor.
Wait, I'm Kramer? Damn. I've got to speak to my agent.
has a good post up about how geographic divisions in Congress led to the fall of SCHIP. Go read it.
He does? That didn't really seem to be the topic of the linked post.
Brock is correct, the topic of the linked post is Senator John Thune pretending that he voted against the bill because he is an idiot who doesn't understand that different places have different costs of living.
The Senate was also not the problem- they have enough votes to override the veto. It's the house, which is somewhat more representative, where they're about 20 votes short- but that's because they need 2/3 to override, it still has a significant majority.
Read the MSNBC article linked in the linked post for more details on geographic divisions.
That's an interesting post. Full disclosure: I have met Ryan, and he seemed like a nice guy.
The MSNBC article doesn't say anything non-obvious; urban districts have higher incomes; urban districts are represented by Democrats. Did poor districts vote against it because they're represented by people in the same party as Bush, or because they suddenly care about controlling spending? The instructive comparison is between Republicans who voted for and against- is the split there by income level of their district?
There is one example of this given, but even that isn't clear, because the R is from a likely contested seat (Brooklyn)- safe R seats are also more rural, etc...
The MSNBC story is where the interesting material is. I don't entirely get what Roy Blunt is saying to reporters there. He admits that he is voting against it because $61K is a lot in his district, even though it isn't a lot in the district of his fellow Republican from Staten Island.
So does he think that children in Staten Island have good access to health care because if they lived in Missouri, they'd be rich? That's like saying its fine to parade around outdoors nude in Antarctica because if you were in Hawai'i, it'd be warm.
Is he just saying that needs that aren't readily apparent to my constituents don't count?
Is he just saying that needs that aren't readily apparent to my constituents don't count?
Sounds like a pretty fair summary of the basic Congresscritter business model.
But they aren't supposed to actually *say* it!
No, they're allowed to say that. What they're not allowed to say is that they believe that whatever's best for monopolistic industry in its war against the consumer and the worker is good for America. Unless they're from Texas, then they can say it.
My congressman (Dem) voted against SCHIP, saying that it's not necessary since children in his state at that income level are already covered. (Which they are.)
A factor I haven't seen mentioned about the thinly populated, Republican Plains and Rocky Mountain states is that they're cheap to buy. Media costs are low, many of them are poor states, and they have a certain small range of key economic players. So a Wyoming Senator (**Dick Cheney**) is a lot cheaper than a NY Senator, not only in election costs but also in vote-buying costs (a measly twenty million bucks goes a long way in Wyoming, whereas in NY that's just pocket change).
So I think you have a triangular relationship between the rural locals with their specific beliefs, the medium sized local interests who want grease, and the big money people who are buying budget Senate votes for reasons completely unrelated to the belief or needs of the local communities or even the "big" local interest groups. (Of course this triangle is everywhere, but for the reasons I've said the outside big money is probably more important in the chickenshit little yahoo states.)
I'm often appalled by just how inexpensive our congress is. Shouldn't legislation that affects the whole land be worth something? It is some kind of market failure.
That's why Emerson keeps trying to sell us houses in North Dakota.
Once you've gotten used to living in a chickenshit little yahoo state, you love it.
yahoo states vs. google states: alert the media on this emerging trend!
Also, people don't buy votes. They establish long term relationships with friends in which they invest heavily.
28 is right. You don't buy votes. You buy congressmen. And they're cheap. Hookers are more expensive.
I bet if someone did a long term cost benefit analysis on a paid relationship with a congressman and a relationship with paid relationship with a hooker, the congressman would be far cheaper in terms of initial outlay and much richer in terms of reward.
But surely there must be a more attractive chickenshit little yahoo state than North Dakota. If we're going to try to start our own little Rajneeshpuram, let's at least make it somewhere pleasant.
29: For the price of an Idaho Senator you can get a two-fer.
What the hell? Chinese subtitles? Or Kanji?
Is he doing an ad for MANDOM?
But surely there must be a more attractive chickenshit little yahoo state than North Dakota.
There is.
Chinese. I think he's threatening someone.
29 28 is right. You don't buy votes. You buy congressmen. And they're cheap. Hookers are more expensive.
I often imagine the contempt that the big money guys must have for people like Delay and Bob Ney et al. One little golfing trip to Scotland and you can have your way with them. Pathetic bounders.
Wee sleekit timorous cowering beasties.
Seriously, I am going on the assumptiont that William H. Macy is the new spokesman for MANDOM, unless someone tells me what this clip is from.
Most players in those sorts of games are too busy worrying about their own status to be properly comtemptuous of the others.
36 is wrong. The new spokesman is Victor Davis "MANDOM!" Hanson.
Er, I seem to have posted in the wrong thread, and nobody noticed.
MANDOM!
You don't buy votes. You buy congressmen. And they're cheap.
I suspect that someone has studied this issue. But, I agree with you. It doesnt cost much to have some influence with your elected representative.
39: it confused the hell out of me you'll be happy to know, Ned.
I don't think that anything makes me more upset than how cheaply our Congressional Representatives can be bought. Of course, pace Cunningham et al, they don't see themselves as bought, which is the biggest part of the problem. I believe that those seeking rent can do better than 10x their investment in Congress.
A member of the California state assembly (the lower house there) represents something like five times as many constituents as a U.S. Senator from Wyoming. Pretty amazing if you think about it.
In that sense the Senate is an amazingly undemocratic institution. I guess you could argue for it on the same basis as holding early primaries in New Hampshire -- it allows for more face to face politics.
