You know how people have been talking the past couple months about how Alaska gets more federal money per capita than any other state? That's Stevens. What you call pork, locals call boosting the local economy.

It's the same reason why Congress is at a 12% approval rating yet most incumbents have no trouble keeping their seats. Everyone thinks their Representative and Senators are great, it's all the others that are crooks.

It's the same state that made Palin their governor.

Look around you. It's the people. Dumb and ignorant.

Not that there aren't plenty of dumb people around, but the ignorance part is practically unavoidable. Even smart people have little incentive to be well-informed when there are a large number of voters. This "rational ignorance" is a basic defect of democracy.

Sounds like the Richard Feynman stories about sitting on the board that chose the math/physics books for highschool students. He was the only one reading them while the others were just judging the book by the cover or what the publisher had said. It just goes to show that even brilliance can be overruled.

so is systematic irrationality. Turns out that according to polls, people has systematically irrational beliefs when it comes to voting (probably because they have no immediate personal stake). Poll here: http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/1199-econgen.cfm

Err, hmm?

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/1199-econgen3.cfm

58 percent of the general public think that tax cuts are good for the economy, while 37 percent of economists do. So, the lesson learned is.....the general public is more qualified to set policy than experts.

Uh, whoa? Tax cuts in the United States are generally done without corresponding decreases in spending, leading to a massive deficit, leading to an unpayably large national debt.

You can't simply say 'tax cuts are good' and call it a day- that's a gross oversimplification. "Tax cuts are good when accompanied by a decrease in government spending such as that we have a large surplus" I can agree with.

I don't even want to agree with that. The function of government is to provide essential services to society, and I don't think you can just say that it's better for the economy if you cut spending so it doesn't. I doubt the economy would be improved in a total anarchy, which is essentially your suggestion seen to its ultimate conclusion.

For example, even the Economist agrees that a market economy won't function without clear rules that everyone plays by. And they are also of the opinion that carbon taxes are better than cap-and-trade, because taxes provide better long-term stability so businesses are able to plan and adapt.

Economists are often consulted by politicians wrt govt spending, so they have a more specific interest in govt funding. Average Joes may see a benefit or two but every paycheck has deductions, so they have a different interest.