> I really wish you would have said that a long time ago. Why? If I accept your premise, what difference does it make if I'm familiar with the details? > Oy,

> I really wish you would have said that a long time ago. Why? If I accept your premise, what difference does it make if I'm familiar with the details? > Oy, I can't believe that's a serious question. It's dead serious. Why do you have such a hard time believing that? > I count constituents by the number of people, not the number of dollars. Do you not think that supporting one of the leading industries in the state you represent, an industry that directly employs tens of thousands of people and indirectly employs hundreds of thousands more, counts -- or is at least defensible -- as being supportive of your constituents even when measured by people rather than dollars? Also, if I have money then chances are that I earned it by being productive. Why should that not entitle me to greater consideration than someone who has been less productive as adjudicated by the free market? (Yes, I know earlier I said there were no free markets. The phrase "free market" meant something different there than it does here. There it referred to sellers, here it refers to buyers. The U.S. does have a relatively free market on the demand side, just not on the supply side.) BTW, counting constituents by number of people rather than dollars has never been the American way. It's actually a very modern notion. At the founding, only white male land owners could vote. The founders specifically designed our system to not make all voices equal. Again, I'm not saying this is a good thing. I don't think it is. But it's a fact.