absolute power

Stevens: no!

As a frequent interjectionist on the Daily Show (infamous for his boisterous NO!s), many people may not be familiar with Alaska's favored bacon maker. The principle reason to attack pork isn't the waste of taxpayer money (which is indeed bad, but is only the skimmed portion on top of the spoiled milk that is our budget), but rather the principle that such monies usually generate large profits for whoever gets use of them. Economic studies will suggest that 'campaign donations' result in about 100 times that cost in additional revenues from these pork projects or from corporate advantages written in for some politician's favored donors. Sometimes more. The natural result of so much extra money in play is that a politician will feel an entitlement to a personal cut. Not satisfied with a massive political war chest and the doling out of political favoritism (such as the bridge to nowhere), eventually the take will become personal. That's where the problem lies: the ethical considerations inherent to the exercise of power.

What is telling in Stevens' case is that he feels no wrong was committed, something which was also apparent when he rammed through the money for his earmark while billions of dollars were needed for the fallout of Katrina. Alaska may or may not re-elect the man (he was trailing on 538's list, barely). But they should also be aware that such practices are indicative of abuse of power. They are placated only so long as those abuses turn in their favor, but such power as it grows and expands eventually is only used for the favor of its owner. As it appears this is the case. Stevens is hardly a lone actor in this farcical play. Keep that in mind.