The price of Leviathan.

The perversion of the constitution that has been perfected by the U.S. Supreme Court from the time of the New Deal has led to a vast expansion of federal power and the concomitant diminution of state power. (We have previously posted on the creative ways in which the people are effectively prevented from controlling the federal government, "Leviathan" in our title.)

The price we pay for this loss of control is enormous.

Extraterrestrial landing strip, or not? You be the judge.

On a personal level, recent polite inquires by the Colonel of his federal legislative representatives have been met with a patronizing and irrelevant response in one case and silence in the other.

We don't lie awake at night fretting over this, primarily because rum and Pepsi is such a fine beverage combination. And maybe getting answers to why extraterrestrials are parking on top of the Lincoln Memorial just . . . isn't . . . that . . . important in the scheme of things.

On a higher level, however, the consequences of having our federal government being unaccountable (in all but the most lurid, captured-on-video-hand-on-the-titty instances of abuse) are more serious.

Take the issue of earmarks in federal appropriation legislation.

But earmarks have multiplied. When President Reagan vetoed a highway bill in 1987, he complained that it contained a then-unprecedented 152 earmarks. Last year's highway bill alone contained 6,371 earmarks, or 42 times as many.

At least President Reagan complained and, gasp, vetoed the offending legislation. President Bush, who's otherwise doing a fine job in Iraq, is definitely in a flameout status on this kind of stuff.

Perhaps he's distracted by the vital issue of dealing effectively with the challenge of murderous, fanatical Muslims.

The Republicans in Congress have no such excuse and have so squandered their legislative majority and spent such vast sums of money as to risk the rising from the grave of Tip O'Neil for a victory lap or two in the next Plunder, Pillage and Pork Olympics, which apparently will be hosted by Alaska in 2007, an election off-year as it happens.

Why Alaska would be afforded such honors is evident from the editorial from the Wall Street Journal, cited herein. It's interesting reading for the light it sheds on the relationship between (a) federal tax dollars and (b):

• Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska);
• Bill Bittner, brother-in-law of Sen. Stevens and Washington lobbyist;
• Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski;
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska), daughter of Gov. Murkowski and appointed by him to replace him in the Senate;
• Nancy Murkowski, wife of Gov. Murkowski and co-owner with three siblings of 35 acres of land that would be affected by "the bridge to nowhere";
• Art Nelson, son-in-law of Rep. Don Young and part owner of 60 acres of land that that would be affected by the "Don Young Bridge"; and
• Alaska fisheries lobbyist Trevor McCabe, former legislative director for Sen. Stevens and part owner of 60 acres of land that that would be affected by the "Don Young Bridge."

We're a little troubled by the Alaskan toleration for the concept of a family Senate seat, which we thought we'd just mention while the internet is still up and running.

We're also still trying to absorb this tidbit involving Mr. McCabe, state senator Ben Steven (the son of Sen. Stevens), and Mr. Nelson (the son-in-law of Rep. Don "Il Ponte" Young):

Until last October, Mr. McCabe was partners with state senator Ben Stevens, the son of Ted Stevens, in a consulting firm called Advance North that represents salmon fishermen who are regulated by the state Board of Fisheries, which is chaired by none other than Mr. Nelson, Rep. Young's son-in-law.

Taken all together it's hard not to think of Alaskan politics being a bit on the incestuous side.

Is that the best Alaskans can do with their franchise? Just asking. You know, like we're curious.

And good luck on affecting this nonsense if you're Joseph Schmo, citizen of Alaska, who does care. Or if your own representatives are up to the same nonsense. With there having been 13,999 earmarks that Congress authorized last year, there's a good chance that your state's representatives inserted one or two of their own (13,999 divided by 51 = 274 per state).

According to a parochial view of all this, it's surely terrific when one state gets a truckload of free cash from the other taxpayer schnucks.

From the viewpoint of what we started out in this country to achieve, however, it's terrible for the country when 50+ jurisdictions each get a similar truckload.

Just maybe having an unaccountable federal government that wields powers never dreamed of by the Framers in their wildest fantasies or nightmares is a bad thing. There has been a most extraordinary transformation in the federal-state balance of power and it sure hasn't been effected by an honest constitutional process. Quite the contrary.

Maybe the voters in November of 2006 and 2008 won't be that impressed by what the Republican's have managed to do with what was entrusted to them. Maybe they'll just be upset that they didn't get their share of the boodle.

One way or the other we cynically doubt that this issue will be debated or fought over in 2008. Never mind the debasement of the Consitution. We'll probably have a serious debate on the 2008 equivalent of whether the President should have worn a flight suit in a fighter flight to an aircraft carrier. Or whether Republicans intended to rid New Orleans of black people once and for all.

Maybe by 2008 John Kerry will have released his service records.

We're certainly optomisitic.

"Don Young's Way. Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport and other Alaskan money pits." Wall Street Journal, 2/7/06 (emphasis added).