Legislation is often compared to making sausage, because of the ugly things you need to do to arrive at a finished product. But here's the thing: people find sausage to be tasty, and eat a lot of it.

In the last four years, Democrats won large congressional majorities and the Presidency campaigning on health-care reform. Obama made it a centerpiece of his campaign. How exactly did the legislators not represent peoples' wishes?



Our system has a lot of quirks and problems, but I think the carping about earmarks and special deals for certain states is a bit overdone. The Ben Nelson deal for Nebraska was one instance where I think the outrage was justified, and as it turns out, that was yanked from the bill by the Senate last night in the reconciliation fixes (the House made the Senate promise to do this before they'd sign the bill in the first place.)

The fact is, legislators *should* be looking out for the interests of their constituents. They have a larger responsibility to do what's right for the country, but as a resident of Pennsylvania, I don't have a right to vote Ben Nelson of Nebraska out of his Senate seat because he tried to take money that could have gone to my state. So, I expect him to be accountable to his constituents, not me.

I think the point at which it becomes harmful is not primarily based on how much money is involved, but how it's done. Nelson basically realized he was the one and only swing vote in the Senate, and took the bill hostage until he got what he wanted. Instead of an open debate on whether Nebraska needed more funding, he basically extorted his way to an earmark. That's not something we need in our legislation. But, aside from instances like this, I have no problem with an honest and open debate on whether state X or district Y deserves more funding.