The medium for our discussions are news articles concerning these topics as advocated, proposed, and/or enacted, by individuals, legislative or administrative bodies, up to the President. The time period homed in upon is the terms to date of the Clinton administration, and the 103rd Congress.

It is quite evident from our analyses, that there are no clear rationales, principles, nor restraints associated with the latitudes taken by politicians in these matters. This leaves our citizens with confusion, lack of unity, and bitterness. Unless corrective measures are taken, this can only lead to further rack and ruin of our democratic institutions.

6. For three Presidents and seven Congresses, the American electorate has been promised government reorganization, and spending cuts. The first Reagan administration commissioned the Grace Commission. Its report has graced the library shelves, gathering dust, and bore no fruit.

Vice President Gore in 1993 chaired the National Performance Review, a limited clone of the Grace Commission. Its report promised 252,000 federal job reductions, and $108 billion savings over five years. As reported in an editorial of September 13, 1993, the operational changes suggested by Gore depend on Congressional approval, and carry-through. Prospects there were deemed to be dubious.

Sure enough! A brief news item of April 29, 1994 reported: "Only weeks after agreeing to eliminate 272,900 jobs in the federal bureaucracy, the House backed down Thursday. It voted 282-118 to exempt from the cuts all medical jobs at the Department of Veteran Affairs, one of the government's largest employers, and one with powerful supporters and a patriotic hold on Congress. The across-the-board cuts would have eliminated 25,493 jobs over five years from the agency."

In apparent frustration with the political and procedural roadblocks to achieving spending cuts, two Representatives (one of each party) have come up with an "A to Z Spending Cuts Plan". The title applied to the bill comes from the last initials of the two sponsors, not from the likely scope to be achieved if the bill is approved. A number of news articles were published in April, both ballyhooing and belittling the prospects.

The measure would authorize at least 56 hours of House time for debate--on the record--of various deficit-cutting proposals offered by individual House members. The plan would completely bypass all committee hearings, committee votes and powerful committee chairmen, and let members propose cuts in any programs they wish--on the House floor.

Although the proposal has merit in view of the gridlock, even if approved, it could be subject to the usual political pressures. The number and selection of cost cutting measures would likely be inhibited or controlled. The floor debate would likely be limited. The end result would probably be a half, a quarter, a tenth of a loaf, or a bite of the end slice. In any case it would be a one time election year event, not a reform of the legislative process.

7. Pork and Perks, Oink! Oink! Notwithstanding the threatening bankruptcy of our nation, and with a shrug at the movements toward Congressional term limitations, our elected officials continue to belly up to the trough.

An editorial of July 13, 1993, was entitled "HISTORICAL PORK--A case for term limits". Excerpts: ".... if all the bills introduced in the House and Senate this year were to be approved, they would add up to an extra $1 trillion in federal spending." "Take, for instance, America's Industrial Heritage Project, the pet legislation of Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha."

"Congress has approved, at Murtha's urging, $63 million so far of the roughly $155 million of taxpayer funding that will be needed to complete the drive-through tour of southwestern Pennsylvania's heritage." "According to the GAO, its auditors found that not only is the scope of the project .... undefined, but also that no one can actually tell where the money spent so far has gone." "The people of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District keep sending Murtha back to Washington, perhaps because as a long time member of Congress with a seat on the powerful Appropriations Committee, he brings home the bacon."

An editorial of August 5, 1993, lampooned the Senate approval for the building of a federal courthouse. Extracts: "... pork is a federal courthouse in Sacramento. A federal courthouse in Phoenix, on the other hand, isn't pork." "Congress has taken no testimony on the courthouse. Disregarding its customary oversight procedure, the Senate waived the requirement for a building prospectus." "When the federal government proposes to spend more than five times the highest estimate to construct a federal courthouse in Phoenix ... ." "The federal government, it is estimated, already has some 19 million square feet of vacant office space, and yet Washington has embarked on a $5 billion building spree that will produce an additional 84 buildings around the country."

"From potato research to carp control, what your new taxes will buy" reads the banner for an August 23, 1993 editorial. The article bemoans the fact that "... despite all the fevered talk in Washington about making tough spending choices [the fiscal year 1994 appropriation bill] remains chock-full of fat." The news item goes on to cite a "huge list of proposed outlays" ranging from the two ridiculous examples in the banner to "promote tourism in New Mexico" and to "subsidize overseas advertising by large U.S. companies".

In similar vein, an editorial of December 2, 1993, was headed "PORK-BARREL SPENDING--Defense shortchanged". The article went on to say: "... that billions of dollars earmarked in the 1994 federal budget for national defense will be used instead to fund sporting events, museum exhibits and a new landfill in Alaska."

A news magazine article of January 16, 1994, was headed "A Peek Into the Pork Barrel". It recapped information from "The Pig Book", the annual report of Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's about $6.2 billion in pure pork in the 1993 appropriations bill." Examples taken from the book were:

A quick means to end this Congressional madness was prescribed in Responsibility #65. Pointing to Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, it was suggested that suits be taken directly to the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that Congressional practices and procedures, that permit such "pork" for one State, to be unjustly laid on the shoulders of the citizens of all States, to be unconstitutional.

To solve a related (but different) injustice, it may be noted that three States are suing the federal government, to recover costs that the Congress has failed to cover, concerning national immigration laws.