Sold out by IFR

We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common welfare"
but lets not.

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues
and
as
such should be funded at the National level.

And neither are government issues...state of federal.


An artifical rain forest in
Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Quite! That would be one for Disneyland.

In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common welfare"
but lets not.

Mike
MU-2


The preamble, like the AIM, is non-regulatory ;-)

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common welfare"
but lets not.


There's nothing to debate. The notion of the Preamble granting Carte Blanche
is probably the most blatent myth of the modern era.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues
and
as
such should be funded at the National level.

And neither are government issues...state of federal.


An artifical rain forest in
Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Quite! That would be one for Disneyland.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.



I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in
California.

wrote in message
...


Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we
want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.



I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have
to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going
to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay
for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't
have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
Joe in
California.


No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle
Joe.

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
Joe in
California.

No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle
Joe.

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor. The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed before it
went into effect.

Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

wrote in message
...


These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
Uncle
Joe in
California.

No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits
as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than
Uncle
Joe.

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
went into effect.

Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
illeagl's medical bills and schooling.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily,
and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
Uncle
Joe in
California.

No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same
benefits
as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember
the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than
Uncle
Joe.

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
went into effect.

Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
illeagl's medical bills and schooling.

Nonsense. It is the California legislature that enacted many laws to
provide free just about everything for illegal aliens. If California was
not so desirable for the wet backs there would not be the tremendous influx
of border jumpers. California deserves everything it gets including Arnold.
Why don't we hear about other border states having the problems California
is having?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
went into effect.

Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
illeagl's medical bills and schooling.

Yup!! That's FEDERAL law.

wrote in message
...


These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
Uncle
Joe in
California.

No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits
as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than
Uncle
Joe.

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
went into effect.

And they voters that dumped Davis (in regards to the states deficit) also
passed new spending measures of $4 billion (??).


Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

The unintended consequences began with the welfare state (nationally and
federally).