It seems that there is no real "money" as such, just entries in ledgers, which today are even electronic. It seems like the old theory of a 1 cent error on every transaction will ultimately end up yielding billions. I sometimes think that their attitude may be because they have been let in on the secret, there is no money anymore, just entries in ledgers, and they can be jiggered anyway they want.

"Most [voters] are motivated primarily by a vague impression of social policy"
It seems this way to me, but it also seems like political groups tell the candidates which vague social issues to get people fired up about. The candidates don't take marching orders from them, but they need to sell whatever's getting people fired up about in order to win. So to me all this "retail" politics (not sure if that's the right word) is tangential to people seeking gov't monies.

"justified or rationalized in their own minds from their philosophical outlook,"
I think you're smart about philosophy and interested in it. Most participants (donors, candidates, political orgs, voters) are not. When they are, it is often secondary to their little portion of the world. For example, they may think it's wrong for gov't to fund business, BUT in the world today getting an SBIR or STTR grant is a great way to get the attention of investors, so they'd like to win a grant or have more grants awarded in their area.

"depends on the dominant philosophy of the country."
This is unfortunate. I learned a fairy tale in grade school where the Constitution would stop people from acting as a mob, stop people from voting on whether a minority should have basic rights, stop people from over-reacting to some crime with laws that limit speech, gun ownership, rights to privacy, and so on.

"Reality will take care of it, but not in the form of a solution."
Right. We'll get histrionics, increased taxes, hopefully reduced spending. But the problem really won't be solved. I think you agree that just because current levels of borrowing are unsustainable it does not mean the spending will be taken care of.

Thanks again for the detailed reply.

"Most people don't think about Federal projects and pork earmarks at all. "
I remember when I lived in FL the St. Pete Times endorsed Bill Young partly because he was able to bring projects to the district.

Maybe it makes sense to divide people into three groups.
1. Lobbyists and people who work with them directly to get funding for projects they're involved with
2. People who go to fundraisers to make connections with other business people.
3. People responding to political ads and rhetoric.

In this case people in groups and 1 and 2 at least have some awareness of federal monies coming into the district.

"A few Congressmen may be primarily mafia types motivated by the power and money; most are there for some ideology at least to some degree"
Thanks for the detailed response.

I do not think they are normally motivated by anything mafia-like or by ideology. I think they're people whose strength is being likable, making friends, and remembering names, faces, and details about people. They're people with the natural skills to win elections. They're surprisingly un-knowledgeable about nuts and bolts of gov't, history, philosophy. Their strength is charisma.

I do not know how to look up studies of what motivates politicians. My guess is you're wrong, but I have no real evidence. I'm just going on my impression of politicians I've met.

Most people don't think about Federal projects and pork earmarks at all. That is the realm of lobbyists, not general "constituents".

A few Congressmen may be primarily mafia types motivated by the power and money; most are there for some ideology at least to some degree -- and it often includes a sense of self importance for supporting altruism and collectivism (or religion). But all have to pay attention to the lobbyists and pressure groups to stay in office because of the insider manipulations and the costly election campaigns. They are influenced by the lobbyists, who are the sources of campaign funding, and by the political special interest pressure groups (including the slanted media) insistently telling them what is acceptable to ideological activists who dominate election campaign politics.

Most voters don't calculate or know how much money their representatives brings back to their district or to their state in comparison with total Federal taxes paid; they have no idea. They don't pay attention to or know what their representatives are doing at all -- if they even know their names -- unless something blows up in the media. They are concentrating on their own lives and personal problems. They vote every few years, if they vote at all, in accordance with campaign slogans and based on their philosophical outlook.

Most are motivated primarily by a vague impression of social policy, which in turn drives most of the government spending and mostly involving more restrictions, individual and government mandates, controls, government takeovers, and redistribution. Few vote out of principle for explicitly more freedom. The "necessity" of entrenched collectivist programs is increasingly taken for granted as "pragmatic", with increased openness to more, and any challenge to it is met with fear as the American individualist sense of life dissipates. Their assessment of social policy may or may not include the significance of the taxes they are paying or some particular kind of government restrictions as part of their own personal problems, or on the other side how much welfare they get and entitlements they want for themselves, but whatever the personal impact it is justified or rationalized in their own minds from their philosophical outlook, with diminishing individualist sense of life to counter the altruism and collectivism.

The essence isn't that the Constitution isn't self enforcing, but that the kind of government we get, including the nature of a constitution and how it is interpreted or taken seriously to some degree, depends on the dominant philosophy of the country. In the late 18th and early 19th century the Constitution was generally adhered to because Enlightenment values of individualism and freedom still dominated. Corruption by dishonest financial maneuvers influencing government policy and spending was only a small part of the nation's problems. The switch came with the influence from the importation of European counter Enlightenment ideas of statism and collectivism, which were fully embraced by the 20th century with the entrenchment of Pragmatism and Progressivism, and which continued to worsen with more explicit collectivism like communism regarded as a moral ideal. It included explicit rejection of constitutional limitations in principle.

Today, what is left of adherence to the Constitution is a fig leaf over a mob, not because constitutions are inherently worthless, but because the mob is, anf as it becomes more powerful with the spread and acceptance of collectivist ideology. That is why even a politician who wants to limit government power cannot do it beyond "little symbolic things". The spread of the philosophy of reason, individualism and freedom is critical. There is no other way and there are no shortcuts.

But regarding the government spending trillions a year, we do know what will stop that. Reality will take care of it, but not in the form of a solution.

"neither side gives a damn about their "constituents""
I actually think they do, but it's not a good thing when serving their constituents means getting them a little more of a big gov't pie.

The people reasonably think if they're going to send all this money to DC, they want to keep getting as much back as possible. If they have a Congressman who's been in office long enough to get on important committees, they know he'll be able to keep the federal projects flowing. The congressman cares about his constituents and does his utmost to keep the money flowing. Nowhere in this process is there an option to turn off this whole system. It doesn't seem rational to vote for the candidate who says he'll reject spending projects in his district and if the other 434 Representatives do the same there could be a large tax cut. It's much more efficient to try to get a large piece of the pie.

I don't have the solution. My thought has always been the Constitution needs "teeth" to stop the spending, just as it is supposed to stop people for voting for law to limit unpopular speech, ban guns, etc. ewv says no gov't structure put into place by a Constitution can make people follow it if they don't agree with its philosophy. That makes sense, but it also makes it sounds like the Constitution is just a fig leaf over the mob: we're still dependent on the mob not acting like a mob. I don't know. My point is I do not believe politicians have the power to limit gov't beyond little symbolic things. Gov't is spending trillions a year, and I see no way to make it stop.

That is true, but in both cases neither side gives a damn about their "constituents"

"no side will ever be the winner"
The problem is the prize for winning is control over a huge chunk of the economy and power reward some groups and make life hard for others.

That is indeed the issue, it is as if one great gathering of croneys got together, and drew straws to see which side they would play on, just for fun....

If only the voices of the unbiased were heard- like they are here in the Gulch. It's pretty obvious to most of us that the two party system is one looters party that will crush the individual rights of anyone if it enhances the power of the looters.