Since I live in Memphis, I do hear a lot of the news out of Arkansas.

In the fourth district over there, State Senator Mike Ross defeated Republican incumbent Jay Dickey for a seat in the House.

Dickey was a powerful member of the Appropriations Committee.

In the last month of the campaign, more than four million dollars was appropriated in the district for colleges, libraries and so forth. This was all in the new budget.

When Ross made his first trip to Washington as Congressman-Elect, he was informed that these monies have now been removed from the budget. According to Ross, he was told "The people of Arkansas will learn what it means to refuse to return a powerful Republican to office".

Story was by James Jefferson, AP writer, a couple of days ago. I haven't been able to find a link on the web, as yet, anyhow.

But I can't think this augurs well for all the claims of bipartisanship.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2000

Answers

Bipartisanship is a marriage dance between scorpions wherein the marriage never really comes off.

Thought you knew that Davis. Former Speakers Wright & O'Neill were SUCH good teachers.

-- Anonymous, December 26, 2000

Different article, same information.

Natives getting restless accross the river.

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep.-elect Mike Ross, the Democrat who unseated Jay Dickey, said he had heard during the campaign that the Republican leadership in Congress was propping up Dickey's candidacy with hundreds of millions of dollars in projects for Arkansas' 4th Congressional District. "At that time, I said I wouldn't believe it or never would believe it until they took the funding away," Ross said. "Now I know it's true." Dickey said Wednesday that he had secured about $4 million in federal dollars for such things as rural hospitals, volunteer fire departments and community centers, but that every penny of that money was removed after his loss to Ross in the Nov. 7 election. Dickey said he got that news just hours before Congress passed the final spending bill of the session. He would not specify who told him. Ross said it was wrong of Republican leaders to allow Dickey to promise the money to his constituents before the election, then take the money away. "This is politics at its worst," he said. Republican U.S. Sen. Tim Hutchinson, who was not informed about the money's removal from the spending bill, said he'd been afraid Arkansas could lose some projects because of Dickey's defeat. "It's not the way Congress should conduct business," he said. Hutchinson blamed part of the problem on the way Congress works. "The appropriators have too much power. These kind of last-minute add- ons and take-aways are not a good process, but when we lost Jay, we lost our only representative on Appropriations," Hutchinson said of the Appropriations Committee. "It's going to be tougher. We're going to remain vigilant, but it is tougher now. The good news is they didn't take the $94 million [allocated for Interstate 49]. We'll have to keep an eye on that next year." Some lawmakers, most notably Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have criticized the Washington budget process because lawmakers' pet projects often get inserted into spending bills without full review of the House and Senate. The process works like this: First, the House and Senate approve their own spending bills. Then, each chamber appoints negotiators to work out the differences between the two versions. The negotiators routinely add projects for their constituents or for their peers' constituents. The House, Senate and the president are then asked to sign off on the negotiated package. By then, it's often so late in the session that lawmakers are leery of raising much of a fuss. One, they fear negotiators could trim projects from those who protest too much. Two, it's hard to hold up a bill that calls for billions of dollars of much-needed spending for the sake of a few million dollars here and a few million there. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said he was sad that the state lost the money, but he's even sadder about what it could lose in future years. He disagreed, however, with the assessment that losing the $4 million was politics at its worst. "Politics at its worst is when you fail to re-elect a congressman who's bringing that money home," Huckabee said. Fordyce Mayor William Lyon, who considers Dickey a friend, learned of the cuts when he read the newspaper Friday. The city had planned to buy a firetruck with its share of $1 million to be split among volunteer fire departments in 26 counties. "I've known Jay Dickey for 40 years, and I believed him when he told me the money was coming. Maybe he didn't know -- but he should have -- that if he wasn't re-elected, the money he promised wouldn't be coming," said Lyon, who plans to run as a Republican at the next mayoral election. "If they ever expect to elect another Republican from the 4th District, somebody needs to find a way to get that money reinstated."

Information for this article was contributed by Andrea Harter of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2000

Yeah, assuming that the facts are as stated, that's bullcrap and it's wrong. Eliminating political parties might help (note that I said "might" -- I'm not naive[g]), but really, this is a problem that's as old as politics. Democrats have certainly done it (and continue to do it), too.

Case in point: my home state of NC. From Charlotte to the west is generally Republican, the eastern half is predeominantly Democratic. Charlotte and other western cities were screaming for road repairs and other services. They didn't get nearly as much attention as Raleigh, Durham and other big Democratic enclaves did -- at least, not until 1994, when the Republicans won the legislature. THEN the pendulum swung the other way. :)

No doubt, it's wrong any way you slice it, but it's as old as politics. The problem will continue as long as we have a party system.

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2000

More thoughts about political parties and "partisanship" in general.

I first became aware of just how important party affiliation could be when Jim Holhouser was elected -- the first Republican to win the NC Governor's race since Reconstruction. My father immediately lost the chairmanship of the Board of Elections because of a law that required the majority of each county board to represent the Governor's party.

(Incidentally, as an aside, ponder what might have happened in Florida for THIS election if such a law has been in place in that state. Even in largely Democratic counties, the heads of the local elections boards would have been Republican.)

That was my first taste of "partisanship," and it reinforced an earlier decision on my part to vote for the person in each individual race, rather than strictly along party lines.

In NC while I was growing up, it was well understood that certain state jobs -- even that of prison guard, for example -- were dependent upon party affiliation. Simply put, if you applied for such a job, you'd better have a letter of recommendation from a local party boss saying something like, "he/she is a loyal Democrat." By stacking the state employment rolls with loyal party members, the Democrats were able to help ensure reelection, year after year.

In other states, the same thing happens, but on the Republican side. In either case, it's WRONG. IMNHO, this is a free speech issue: my ideology should have NO bearing whatsoever on whether I am qualified to serve as a worker in the state bureaucracy.

So ... in this case that you cite, assuming that it really is Republican tinkering to "deny" money to a Democratic district (and I have no reason to believe it's not), it's just wrong. You won't get any argument from me on that. But I temper it with the thought that, in largely-Democratic enclaves, the same thing happens in the other direction.

The only answer, I am convinced, is to eliminate political parties altogether.

-- Anonymous, December 27, 2000

"There is no distinctive native American criminal class, except Congress." -- Mark Twain

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

CL,

"The only known creature with 500 bellies, 1000 legs and no brain is Congress." -- Lazarus Long (courtesy of Robert Heinlein)

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

In NC while I was growing up, it was well understood that certain state jobs -- even that of prison guard, for example -- were dependent upon party affiliation. Simply put, if you applied for such a job, you'd better have a letter of recommendation from a local party boss saying something like, "he/she is a loyal Democrat." By stacking the state employment rolls with loyal party members, the Democrats were able to help ensure reelection, year after year.
In other states, the same thing happens, but on the Republican side.

So people loose and/or get jobs every time there is an election? And just what other states does this happen in? The southern states that lost the civil war? I knew "the south" was backwards, but this is sick! Haven't these states grown up enough in the past 100 years to stop this kind of corrupt behavior? This sounds like some third world dictatorship. And this is normal to you?

And we get Bush, who thinks this kind of thing is normal and acceptable for President. Do you realize what is going to happen when the majority of people from states where this kind of thing is inconceivable start seeing him and his people blatantly pull this kind of thing? WELL IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED! Maybe now you understand why so many of us are horrified over the way the election was held in Florida! The kind of things that were done may be normal in your area of the woods, but it is unacceptable in the rest of the country. We do NOT turn a blind eye to or make excuses for corruption, there is none of that "everyone does it" and "it has always been that way" mentality in the more (dare I say it) civilized areas of the country. Perhaps the mentality of the south that hangs on to life before the civil war is what has retarded their ability to mature along with the rest of the country. The game is over now though, the people in the rest of the country (outside of "the old south") are appalled and disgusted with the blatant corruption that has been blatantly displayed by the Bush camp and republicans, especially the southern republicans. They do one thing, tell us they are doing another and expect us to go along without questioning them on it. This may work in the old south, but the rest of the country bases their opinions on facts and truth. The rest of us haven't been socially conditioned to go along with this kind of thing, and believe me, even those who were indifferent of the campaign irregularities (corruption) are now sitting up and taking notice and DEMANDING that Bush and co answer for their actions and are rejecting the idea put forth by
Even with the tight reign on Bush by his handlers, his attitude still seeps out enough to alarm the average american. His cabinet choices are also alarming people who can't believe the players in the Iran-Contra scandal would be given such high positions in government. When the democrats get back into office, in weeks or four years, there had better not be any complaints about Bill Clinton being given the top position in foreign affairs.

-- Anonymous, January 01, 2001

Cherri,

I think you're confusing *Federal* hiring practices with those used at the state level. State hiring practices for state government jobs DO tend to be political in nature; are you seriously going to deny that?

You ask me to name other states in which this has happened; good gosh, I ask yet again and more loudly: are you serious?

I am aware of cases -- personally familiar with, in some cases -- from New York to California to NC to Alabama to you name it. It happens all the time! And you don't know this?!?

Why do you think state politics is so important? That's where the REAL power, as far as party control, resides.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2001

I think you're confusing *Federal* hiring practices with those used at the state level. State hiring practices for state government jobs DO tend to be political in nature; are you seriously going to deny that?

Yes, where I live political beliefs are not a factor in hiring. People do not loose their jobs because the other political party gets in charge. How do they justify firing someone because of their political affiliation? We don't even do that thing where we tell our political party here. So in primaries we are free to choose whomever we like. I honestly did not know the political affiliation of most of my neighbors until this election and then it has only been because people from both sides are sickened over what happened in Florida. We all recieve literature from both parties because there is no record of which party we vote for. That is a private matter that is not public information, we do not register our political party of choice when we register to vote.

I am sure that there has been innappropriate manipulation in a lot of different states, but not to the extreme you speak of.

I am serious when I say we don't allow that kind of thing here, that would be grounds for a lawsuit.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2001