Paul Johnson wrote:
> Oregon.
Bully for you. And Oregon is the only indicator in the US for
unemployment or might there just be 49 other data points to consider? I'm
pretty sure if we decided to go state-by-state or county-by-county during the
Clinton years we could find places that have whatever unemployment we want to
find. Given that little tidbit wouldn't it be more prudent to ask what your
local government(s) aren't doing to rectify the problem. When the nation as a
whole is booming and you're in a bust the problem is local and should be
solved locally.
> I think it might have a little more to do with the fact that as soon as Bush
> got to pass a new budget, the northwest suddenly dropped to 49 (Oregon) and
> 50th (Idaho) for federal money reinvested in the states. Bush has a
> vendetta against Oregon that isn't exactly unstated.
Correct me if I'm wrong but.
a: Congress, not the President, is the one that apportions the budget and...
b: Bush didn't veto a single budget until recently.
Given those two facts how exactly are you laying it on Bush's feet and not
the feet of your congresscritters for not bringing home the pork like they had
in the past? I mean that is what *you* sent them there for, right? Leech off
the other states for your own benefit?
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature