It occurred to me watching "Now"'s coverage of the Ted Stevens indictment, there is something really disgusting about the *concept* of an Alaskan senator that brings home the pork.
Here is a supposedly Republican state, anti-taxes all the way, whose oil assets bring in so much money they can afford to not only have no income tax *and* no sales tax, but in lieu of an income tax they can actually pay their citizens a rebate.
Now - I'm fine with that. Their oil money, if they don't feel a need to invest in infrastructure like everyone else, that's their option.
But that the same GOP that complains about welfare queens is content to run an entire state like one? Because they're evidently perfectly content to sit and take *my* money for bridges to nowhere, and thank "Uncle Ted" for bringing home the Pork?
It's been long known that the wealthy Democratic leaning states tend to contribute to the federal budget, and the poor states that lean Republican tend, in balance, to be recipients of federal largesse. Since I'm a Democrat in a predominantly Republican state I can both be okay with this on the general principle of believing in the concept of Welfare as a rule, and accept the benefits of that welfare with a simple thanks.
But Alaska takes it rather far to the extreme even for my tastes. They actually say they are anti-tax, and have the nerve to waste money on what even they admit are pork projects?
Why has this never been a Democratic talking point?