Share this:

Five/5/FIVE messages on my answering machine last night asking me to vote for _______________.

I”m a registered non-partisan super-voter, so my vote is especially coveted, courted, cajoled. Thanks, guys, I appreciate that I’m important to the electoral process.

Now GET THE *$%^&)@ off my answering machine!

I’m voting THIRD-PARTY and INDEPENDENT. The only political party race I”m casting a ballot in is Don Young and Forest Dunbar and that’s only because there is no third-party candidate and I can’t stand Forest Dunbar. Hear that, Forest! I think Don Young needs to retire, but I don’t think you should take his place, so I’m voting for him because you’re the only other person in the race.

I’m voting for the independent candidate for Governor — Bill Walker. I’m not actually voting for Byron Mallott (still the Democrat who got Lisa Murkowski back into the Senate after the Republican voters rejected her in 2010) and I hope Bill takes good care of himself.

I’m voting for the Libertarian candidate (Mark Fish) for Senator. Yes, Begich or Sullivan will win. I don’t care! I can’t vote for either of those two idiots.

I’m voting down the salmon initiative because I recognize that not everyone in Alaska is a commercial fisherman and most commercial fishermen plying Alaska waters are from Washington and Oregon. I am pro-Alaskan, not pro-fish cartel. I believe large scale mining and salmon fishing can and should coexist.

I’m not sure if I’m voting to legalize marijuana. I feel about marijuana the same way I feel about alcohol and other “recreational” drugs. They are dangerous and soul-sucking and society would be better off without them, but I don’t have the right to make that decision for the whole of society. Legalizing them won’t make them safe, but criminalization just creates criminals. My years in the mental health field means I know a great deal more about marijuana’s ugly side than the general public knows. Also, Alaska has had defacto decriminalization for more than 30 years,, so I’ve seen the societal affects first hand. Trying to portray it as harmless doesn’t mean that it is actually harmless. But, like alcohol, it’s not going to be stopped by criminalization. I might just leave that section of the ballot unchecked because I am ambivilant. Call it a clash between my Christian morality and good sense and my civil libertarian ideals. Yeah, I probably will just not check the box either way.

I’ve voting against the minimum wage hike because I believe forced higher wages reduces employment rates especially among the young and marginally skilled and ultimately provides employment opportunities for those who don’t pay taxes — mainly, illegal immigrants.

So, there you have it!

I’m voting, but not for any candidate who is getting big money or party endorsements. Stop calling me urging me to do so and STOP TELLING ME WHO TO VOTE FOR. I made that decision a long time ago without your help, which I never needed.

Share this:

I was leery of the Conservative Party when it first got started in 2008. For one thing, it seemed a bit cheeky to call themselves the American Conservative Party. And, frankly, there was no time for them to build any sort of consensus by the November 2008 election. I gave them a cursory glance in 2012, but felt that the issues Obama presented were too important to allow him to win while I voted on principle. So, now, assured that there are three years to consider a new direction for the country, I am ready to say I like their platform.

As a Christian, I like their stand on religious freedom, which is that they don’t have much to say about it other than that it is a right and therefore protected. Remember what I said under the Constitution Party analysis … I’m an evangelical who is just fine with other religions worshipping freely in this country so long as their worship does no physical harm to anyone or damage property. I’m not threatened by what others believe — I know how it’s going to turn out in the end. A political party that takes a neutral position based on the Constitution aligns itself with my feelings on that subject.

I like that the ACP aren’t going for the presidency in 2016 and plan to focus on city councils and school boards in 2014 and maybe Congressional races in 2016. All politics is local and this sounds like a true grass-roots movement. When, if, they’ve a track record at the local and state levels in enough states, they can become a true national party. That is far more sensible than wasting time, energy and money getting certified for a presidential election at this point. Ballot access laws make that a dicey project at best.

On the other hand, the ACP seems a bit uncomfortable with allowing non-partisans like myself access to some of their state sites. They want money first. That could explain why my fellow Alaskans don’t appear to have formed a state site yet. Most of us are unwilling to buy a pig in a poke.

So, it looks like, at this moment, I am going to remain a non-partisan … for now.

Share this:

We have a year to the midterms and three years to the Presidential election, so it seems like a really good idea to check our political compass and chart a new course now rather than later. I thought we might do that in the run-up to the 2008 election, but then conservatives (in the broad sense of the word) decided to cast their lot in with the GOP and the self-examination never happened.

There are alternatives to the GOP, folks! Why not look at them?

I confess, I like the sound of the Constitution Party. There’s resonance in that title. So, I checked them out. They’ve got some good ideas. Limited government, balanced budgets, states rights … all good ideas. I like that they say they are in favor of life and the freedom of religion. I like that the Alaska Independence Party endorsed some of their presidential candidates in the past.

As I read through their very long platform http://http://www.constitutionparty.com/, I started to get nervous. My civil libertarian side started to feel a bit concerned. All assurances aside, I felt like I was reading a manifesto on statism wrapped up in the words of liberty.

I’m a born-again Christian who absolutely believes in freedom of religion, but I also think everyone has the right to such freedom – including those who are wrong in what they believe – atheists, Muslims, cultists. As long as their belief does not result in physical harm to anyone else or their property, they have an absolute right to their belief and the Constitution Party left me feeling as if they didn’t agree with that. Like most evangelical Christians, I am not interested in establishing a theocracy and a party platform that makes me feel like an atheist who also happens to be a constitutional conservative would feel unwelcome in the Constitution Party makes me uncomfortable.
That wasn’t the only issue, but it was the one that had my stomach in the most knots. No party platform, being the product of humans, will be perfect, but my automatic reaction to any sort of totalitarianism is resistance.
If they clear that up, they might get my vote. If they don’t … doubtful.

Share this:

The Libertarian Party isn’t really a conservative party. It’s a fiscally conservative party that advocates for leaving the other guy alone. On the surface, I like that idea, but I’ve got some reservations.

I agree that government exists to protect the rights of every individual and should not be engaged in choosing groups of individuals for special protection.

First, I have some good friends who were strong members of the Libertarian Party for over 20 years who withdrew several years ago because of the LP stance on the legalization of drugs and abortion. As a Christian who believes that murder is murder even if the victim is pre-born, I don’t think I can vote for people who say it doesn’t matter. I don’t find the constitutional argument for privacy holding any water in this instance. Our founders never would have agreed that murder was okay so long as it was private. The taking of human life is murder. Maybe I wouldn’t be comfortable with women and doctors who perform abortions being prosecuted as aggressively as people doing driveby shootings, but I still hold with the moral concept that abortion is murder and that the Constitution doesn’t give us a special right to commit murder under special circumstances. “All men are created equal” except if “they’re a black person living below a certain geographical line and then they’re not.” That was a special right granted white southerners by the Supreme Court and it was still wrong.

I agree that the military is way larger than it needs to be and that the United States should not attempt to act as global police officer, but when researching the LP, I also believe we must maintain our ability to wage war on foreign soil and not just react after the fact to aggression that comes against us. I believe that stance will leave us at the mercy of our enemies, fighting on Main Street USA instead of “over there”. We shouldn’t get involved in the wars of others and we shouldn’t pick fights just because we can, but why shouldn’t our enemies be the ones who suffer the consequences when they start wars with us rather than us having to rebuild?

I strongly disagree with allowing an open-borders immigration policy on the grounds that the United States has a right and obligation to its current citizens to protect them not only from military foreign invasion, but also from cultural foreign invasion. The United States of America will not remain the United States of America if we allow ourselves to be overrun by citizens of other countries who have no interest in assimilating to our culture. Even legal immigration needs to be measured to allow for assimilation of new immigrants without overwhelming the existing culture. Immigrants should add to our culture, not transform it.

So, while there are parts of the LP platform that I agree with, I cannot agree with enough of it to feel comfortable with it.

I think I’m beginning to understand why third-parties have such a hard time in national political races.

Share this:

I was leery of the Conservative Party when it first got started in 2008. For one thing, it seemed a bit cheeky to call themselves the American Conservative Party before conservatives had a chance to decide if they had earned that title. And, frankly, there was no time for them to build any sort of consensus by the November 2008 election. I gave them a cursory glance in 2012, but felt that the issues Obama presented were too important to allow him to win while I voted on principle. So, now, assured that there are three years to consider a new direction for the country, I am ready to say I like their platform.

As a Christian who also believes in civil liberties, I like their stand on religious freedom, which is that they don’t have much to say about it other than that it is a right and therefore protected. I like that they aren’t going for the presidency in 2016 and plan to focus on city councils and school boards in 2014 and maybe Congressional races in 2016. All politics is local and this sounds like a true grass-roots movement. When, if, they’ve established a track record at the local and state levels in enough states, they can become a true national party. That is far more sensible than wasting time, energy and money getting certified for a presidential election at this point.

On the other hand, the ACP seems a bit uncomfortable with allowing non-partisans like myself access to some of their state sites. They want money first. That could explain why my fellow Alaskans don’t appear to have formed a state site yet. Most of us are unwilling to buy a pig in a poke.

So, it looks like, at this moment, I am going to remain a non-partisan … for now. If they have a booth at the Alaska State Fair in Fairbanks, I’ll stop and talk with them. If not, well, they’re missing an opportunity here and not just with me, because as I said, most Alaskans are high-information voters.

Share this:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2013/44_are_fiscally_conservative

Conservatives are the largest voting bloc in the United States. According to a January 2012 Gallup poll, 40% of Americans described their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% of liberal. Forty-four percent of likely voters said they were fiscally conservative in a January 2013 Rasmussen poll. So why aren’t we sweeping conservatives into office year after year, presidential election after presidential election? Politics … party politics – dictates that conservatives who vote with the Republican Party are forced to settle for moderate and progressive Republicans and endure the heartburn over broken promises after supporting an impostor.

It would be untrue for me to say there aren’t good, conservative Republicans holding office. There are some who serve diligently and deserve our profound thanks and support. However, despite their good intentions and hard work, they are powerless against parliamentarian tactics, establishment rule and cronyism. Conservatives have learned to accept that every Republican claims to be conservative during campaign season. The problem with our complacency is they eventually reveal their true colors as progressives and then real conservatives suffer and the conservative movement as a whole loses support. Party politics assures Republicans are voted into office instead of conservatives.

Starting in 2008, conservatives stayed home on Election Day, refusing to support a losing proposition. It was a smallish movement then that probably did not get Barack Obama into the White House, but in 2012 it decided the election of Barack Obama to a second term. Just enough conservatives hang in to keep the Republicans competitive, not knowing they could change the course of our country if we would act in unison.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html

Without our support, the Republican Party would vanish overnight, and America would have a legitimate “conservative movement.” Unfortunately, too many conservatives believe that they have no voice without the Republican Party, so we compromise. Why put one’s self in such a dilemma and partake in such a soul-wrenching affair just to say later that the lesser of the two progressive Republicans is better than a progressive Democrat?

Why not pick up and move camp under a single, solitary conservative party?

I know … they never win … unless people vote for them as happened in 1860 and almost happened in 1992. Conservatives are 40-45% of the electorate. Bill Clinton won the 1992 election with only 38% of the vote. Third parties can make a difference and a true conservative party that spoke to the principles of our voting bloc could easily win a three-way election … which would send a strong message to the liberals and moderates that conservatives really do exist and we really do think our principles are what the country needs.

The real problem for me is … how do you pick one?

Share this:

I’ve said repeatedly that I am a nonpartisan, so you are unlikely to get a lot of party rhetoric from me. I don’t follow GOP insider news, but I heard this on the radio the other morning and researched it. It is indicative of why I am a nonpartisan and why I think conservatives are not very bright in continuing their attachment to the Republican Party. This scenario is being played out around the nation, wherever conservatives have tried to move the Republican Party back to the principles of the majority of GOP members. The battle is far from lost, but in Alaska, the “old guard” is winning because they have the resources.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130409/alaska-gop-drama-results-chairwomans-ouster

The fact is that the GOP “old guard” has its own, more or less moderate progressive vision for the State of Alaska while conservatives have a fiscally responsible, smaller government vision for it. Who is in the majority? I don’t know. I’m not a GOP member, so don’t rub elbows with the precincts, but I would note that a “tea party” candidate whipped Lisa Murkowski’s hind end in the largest GOP primary turnout in state history (2010), which indicates an awful lot of people who vote in the GOP primaries favored the conservative candidate. Although the GOP leadership endorsed Joe Miller, their support was half-hearted at best and he lost in a squeaker of a write-in campaign. I can’t say for sure there were shenanigans going on, but it felt Chicago-like.

I know nothing about Debbie Brown other than she replaced Russ Millett who was never even seated. That’s the bigger story, because Russ Millett was elected by the party at the state convention, but the “old guard” refused to acknowledge him. You will also note in this story in the Alaska Dispatch how dismissive the reporter is toward Millett and supportive of the “leadership of the GOP.

How anyone with principles can think that the Alaska GOP represents the Alaskan people’s interests is beyond me!

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130403/castoff-millette-going-after-alaska-gop-over-misappropriation-funds

For a more balanced story, I’ve included a link to a small press that’s doing great Alaska coverage – the Alaska Native News – and the story on this that ran in the Anchorage Daily News.

http://alaska-native-news.com/political_news/7687-alaska-s-republican-party-ousts-incoming-chairman-russ-millette.html

http://www.adn.com/2013/01/31/2772735/republicans-to-resume-leadership.html

I’m hoping Alaskan conservatives – many of whom are like me and are registered non-partisan/undeclared – will read this and recognize that we need to make some major changes in this state because this is a clear example where the ruling class (establishment Republicans) are doing everything in their power to disenfranchise the country class (tea party, commonsense conservatives). These people are members of the same party. The ones shut out of the process were the duly elected representatives and the ones doing the shutting out insist that THEY know better than the people.  Think about it, Alaskans!

Share this:

Have you ever interacted with a sociopath?

I have. For 15 years, I worked in the mental health field as an administrator. I found that I enjoyed the clients. Many of them, despite their illness, are good people who just want respectful interactions with their fellow human beings. A handful of them are seriously dangerous when off their medications. A narrow slice of them are down-right creepy and dangerous even when on medications. Those are, usually, the sociopaths.

Sociopathy comes in degrees and can exist independent of true psychosis. Mix anti-social personality disorder severe with some degree of delusion and you may just have a serial killer, but not always. Psychiatry is still an emerging science. And there are all sorts of people who have some degree of anti-social personality disorder who are not psychotic. These are the people who see nothing wrong with cheating on their taxes, but might not cheat on their spouse or murder the neighbors.

Those with anti-social features make excellent politicians. If you can divorce yourself from the very real people your policies are harming, you can accomplish a lot more goals than if you truly care about people.

Another feature of anti-social personalities is that, often, a “normal” person will like the non-delusional ones – a lot. There is something extremely attractive about them – maybe just the self-confidence of absolute assurance that they are right in what they’re doing and that you will eventually come to agree and, if you don’t, it won’t ruin their life, but it might ruin yours. It makes you want to agree with them – even if you don’t.

Which brings us to Barack Obama.

I read his book “Dreams From My Father” before I ever saw him on TV. I didn’t agree with a great deal of what he wrote in the book and “The Audacity of Hope”, which I tried to read during the 2008 campaign, deepened my perspective that he would sell my children into economic slavery to achieve his goals of income redistribution and class leveling. Still, I love to hear the man’s speeches and I frequently find myself nodding over certain sound-bites. Then I read the transcript – I ALWAYS read the transcript – and I am not so enamored. I deprogram myself. Everybody loves people with anti-social traits. There’s something so very attractive about them that you will vote against your own interests to be seen walking in concert with them. And that’s the danger.

Watching him play chicken with the House Republicans would be fun if the nation’s future were not at stake. He’s had them beaten since election night, maybe election night of 2008. He’s not going to blink. He’s a master at the bluff because he truly believes that what he is doing is right and he does not care if anyone else agrees. If he loses a hand here and there, fine. He’s in it for the pot at the end of the game. And he’s winning mostly – for now. He also doesn’t care what happens after he leaves the table. That’s for whoever comes next to worry about. He’s going to do what he’s going to do and let the fallout happen on some else’s watch. Now, he may believe that there won’t be any negative fallout, but it won’t matter to him if there is.

I submit he’s going to go on winning more than he loses until the end of his second term. It’s not that he’s right. It’s not that he understands the people more than his detractors do. It’s that he’s got people convinced that they ought to follow him – even if it is over a cliff and into a swamp. They may even suspect that the journey’s going to end in a bad place, but they’re so enjoying basking in the warmth that they cannot help following him.

Republicans have the same problem today as they had at the start of Bill Clinton’s second term when a majority of the country might have had issues with Slick Willy, but they still found him entertaining and it annoyed them to hear him run down by his opponents. Conservatives wishing to stay with the Republicans (or even go the way of a conservative third party) need to recognize that we are not winning against that image. All our yelling and pointing out that the emperor has no clothes is working against us. It’s not wrong to point out the mistakes being made, but the histrionics are not serving us well.

Now is the perfect time for conservatives, especially in the GOP, to reevaluate and choose a different rhetorical direction. It’s not a change in principles that are needed, but a change in tone. I’m not talking about compromise. I am suggesting communication. We have reality on our side of the argument, but if we’re seen as suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome, it won’t matter – nobody will listen to us. We should clean house, focus on restating our principles in ways that people can understand, and lay off screeching about Obama.

At the end of eight years, the country will be willing to listen to new voices offering sound principles, but only if we act like grownups in the meantime. Reasonable people will listen to reason if it appears to be coming from reasonable people.

Share this:

I give credit where credit is due. This is based on an analytical article by Scott Rasmassen from two weeks ago. As a non-partisan, I have no allegiance to a political party and not much surprises me coming from the GOP anymore. You know, since they tried to convince conservatives that Mitt Romney was one of us, they lack a certain credibility in my view.

 

While Washington media and pundits hailed the “fiscal cliff” deal as a significant bipartisan accomplishment, voters around the country didn’t much agree. According to Rasmussen polls, seven out of 10 Democrats approved of the deal while seven out of 10 Republicans disapproved. I’d say that nine of ten non-partisan conservatives disapproved too.

Coming on the heels of this agreement, Politico reported another area of bipartisan agreement. While Washington Democrats have always viewed GOP voters as a problem, Washington Republicans “… in many a post-election soul-searching session” have come to agree. The article said that, in light of the party’s election failures of 2012, establishment Republicans (the elites of the party) have concluded that they have a “primary problem.”

Viewed from the ivory towers of the DC power structure, the problem for the GOP is that Republican voters think it’s okay to replace incumbent senators and congressmen who do not represent the views of their constituents. In 2012, Republican voters in Indiana dumped longtime Sen. Richard Lugar in a primary battle. In 2010, Alaskan Republican voters dumped Sen. Lisa Murkowski in a primary battle (although she came back as a write-in candidate to win a 32% plurality, which was just enough to secure her Senate seat from her Republican challenger, Joe Miller). The Indiana battle infuriated establishment Republicans because they liked how Lugar worked and the replacement candidate was flawed and allowed Democrats to win what should have been a safe Republican seat. In Alaska, establishment Republicans also liked Murkowski as opposed to her more conservative GOP opponent, but there was no risk of the Democrat winning the election (which makes one wonder about conspiracies in the halls of power).

Politico reports that the Washington GOP team is gearing up a new effort to protect incumbents and limit the ability of Republican voters to successfully challenge establishment candidates. There’s logic in that move for those whose sole aim is to win a majority in Congress rather than change the course of government policy. Seen from a non-partisan perspective, however, it looks like the professional politicians (the political class as some have called it) are saying that the only way to win is to pick candidates who closely resemble themselves. So why should conservatives, even Republican conservatives, bother to vote if they won’t be allowed to select candidates who represent their values? This may explain why more than two-thirds of Republican voters believe GOP officials in Washington have lost touch with the party’s base and it may also explain the significant drop in GOP participating in this election, despite party registrations making it the largest party in the nation.

It may explain why party elites believe that Mitt Romney was just too conservative for American voters while most conservative voters thought Mitt Romney was a progressive RINO to the point that many of them stayed home on November 6, 2012. This is evidence of the divide between the leadership of the Republican Party and the voters the leaders would like to call their base; a gulf that widens with every election cycle. This cycle some voters stayed home rather than vote for the party anointed; in 2016, they may start voting Libertarian or Constitution Party as a viable option to select a candidate who will represent them.

The GOP establishment has a choice to make. They can either act like grown-up leaders of a national political party in a representative democratic republic or they can protect their own self-interest like any good oligarchy.

An oligarchy protects its self-interest and stays in power no matter who it has to sell out. After decades of pandering to conservative voters to keep us as their base, the GOP establishment has now decided it must, at least in the short-term, pander to other groups to try to bring them into the big tent. With all due respect, you are never going to please conservatives by spending a lot of money on unpopular programs like welfare and auto company bailouts. We want smaller government that spends less and is paying down the debt. You might win the mushy middle, but what good does that do you if you lose the 38% of the electorate that self-describe as conservative?  And recognize that the 30.3% of voters who are registered unaffiliated include voters like me who are CONSERVATIVES to the right of the GOP base but willing to vote with you-all if you give us at least some of what we want.

If the GOP elite want to act like a national party in a representative democratic republic, they need to understand their constituents. Mature party leaders would spend significant amounts of time listening to Republican voters rather than isolating themselves further from them. They’d ask the tough questions about why we prefer “tea party” candidates over their establishment anointed candidates. They would seriously ponder why just half of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of House Speaker John Boehner, who is the current face of the Republican leadership. They would analyze why only 37 percent of Republicans believe the economy is mediocre – not good, but merely fair.  And, they’d take responsibility like grown-ups and acknowledge that government spending in the US has gone up every year since 1954 regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were in the majority. Then, after some real soul searching, these party elitist would-be leaders would chart a realistic course to address those concerns. That new “contract with America” would include some bitter medicine for the political elite of the GOP, such as giving up corporate welfare programs that benefit their friends and allies. Then they would take the bold step of sharing this plan of correction with the voters and helping Republican voters identify primary candidates who challenge the establishment who could also be effective on the campaign trail without sounding like Democrats.

My prediction is that the GOP elite will continue to protect the insiders from the voters and keep their perks rather than represent their constituency. Expect more “centrist” candidates who will promise greater spending and more programs that appeal to the optimistically misinformed. Don’t be surprised if your state GOP announces a move to Republican caucus primaries that favor insiders away from primary elections that favor the general electorate. This confirmation of the GOP oligarchy should be a signal for GOP conservatives (and anyone else who thinks our elected officials should represent us rather than themselves) to leave the Grand Old Party in droves and seek third-party representation that more closely resembles our values.

Share this:

This post by Cynthia Tucker in the Philadelphia Inquirer resonates with me, even though I don’t agree with her conclusions.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20130107_Myth_of_the_frugal_Republican.html

Ms. Tucker’s rant concerning the Republican Party can be aimed squarely at both major political parties. Neither of them is interested in cutting spending and each has their own pet projects that just have to receive full funding. The Republican Party needs to look honestly at the defense budget and make substantive changes that do not reduce our defense capabilities, including our ability to respond overseas to threats to our national security, but do reduce overall spending. There’s a lot of waste. Let’s start with a simple clear-headed look at what we ACTUALLY pay our service men. Oooo, third-rail! How dare I mention this! I live in a military town so I know things many people don’t know. Servicemen get paid a slightly below average wage for what they do. However, that is offset by a very generous housing allowance – so generous that off-base rental housing in Fairbanks Alaska is unaffordable by the average working family. It is indeed cheaper to buy here, by about 25%, and the difference is driven by the military housing allowance. I suspect if we researched other areas of country with large military presence, we’d find a similar situation in the off-base rental market. When you gather in the perks that come with a military paycheck you quickly find that military members make more than the prevailing wage and it’s a stable income. It’s also, overwhelmingly, a much safer profession than, say, electrician or fire fighter (to name two occupations that get paid about what a warrant officer makes). Yes, sometimes you have to go to war, but most soldiers never get anywhere near combat. So, let’s be realistic and give it an honest look.

Democrats – seriously, three years of unemployment? Supported housing? Food stamps? Paid-for daycare for non-working women? Free education? Free cell phones? Free mass transportation – maybe we should give these folks free cars? Free health care? Free … free … there is no such thing as a free lunch, so somebody has to pay for it. What percentage of a $250,000 income is considered acceptable? Just so you know – if you tax $250,000 at 90%, the earner still has $25,000 to live on. Does that seem fair? And, when that still isn’t enough – what then? Do we start revising the definition of “rich” downward or do we start asking people who are able to get off their butts and work for a living?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/message-from-alaska-our-disaster-relief-isnt-pork/article/2517643

Baby steps would be nice. Let’s take a good look at how we do spending bills. Instead of passing huge omnibus bills that are filled with pork or, as the above article points out, worthy but unrelated disaster relief, how about we require Congress to break these bills out so we actually know what we’re spending and why we’re spending it.

No, that’s not going to happen anytime in the next two years, but we the people can start demanding it now so that in two years we can elect representatives who will move in that direction.