What would be your 2012 House ACU rating?

[traininthedistance]

Support 13, undecided on 19.  So... either 4% or 8%.  I guess I can imagine a situation where I'd vote with the ACU on 10 as well, but it would take some convincing.

44 = 11/25 (1,4,9,10,13,14,17,19,20,23)

I'm disappointed that so far only one other person so far has supported number 9.  Folks, political science is about as much a science as is creation science. Even by the lax standards of the social sciences it is flabby and the portions of it with any degree of scientific rigor are covered more generally under other disciplines.  Political science should not be funded thru the NSF.  Maybe the NEH, but definitely not the NSF.  Indeed, the funding of political science thru the NSF has no doubt distorted the study of political science into an over emphasis upon quasi-scientific statistical analysis.

I do agree that the NEH would be a better source of funding for poli sci research than the NSF... but academic research as a whole is so woefully underfunded compared to its value that I pretty much feel obligated to oppose any attempt to defund any of it, on principle.

[traininthedistance]

Just about almost all of my principles would seem to indicate that I should support cutting funding for rural airports (it is one of the most inefficient uses of transportation dollars imaginable)... but there is the little problem of the Alaskan Bush, where air service is quite literally their only lifeline to the outside world.  That's a situation where this sort of inefficient spending would be justified on basic humanitarian grounds, as well as the principle that we ought to be fostering connection within our country rather than disconnection.

EDIT:  And, of course, if in the course of legislative sausage-making, it turns out that my support for rural air service is what it takes to get rural reps to vote for mass transit funding, that is a tradeoff I will take in a femtosecond.