| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNISA990003328860203316 |
|
|
Autore |
Associazione antigone |
|
|
Titolo |
Il carcere trasparente : primo Rapporto Nazionale / Associazione Antigone |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Roma : Castelvecchi, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Detenuti - Italia - Inchieste |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collocazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910958493103321 |
|
|
Autore |
Frisch Scott A. <1964-, > |
|
|
Titolo |
Cheese factories on the moon : why earmarks are good for American democracy / / Scott A. Frisch and Sean Q. Kelly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
London ; ; New York : , : Routledge, , 2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
1-317-26250-6 |
1-315-63559-3 |
1-317-26249-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edizione |
[1st ed.] |
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (198 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Altri autori (Persone) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Government spending policy - United States |
Waste in government spending - United States |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
First published 2011 by Paradigm Publisher. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Cover; Half Title; Title Page; Copyright Page; Dedication; Table of Contents; List of Tables and Figures; Preface; Acknowledgments; Chapter 1 Whose Pork Is It Anyway?; Our Argument; Chapter 2 "No Money Shall Be Drawn from the Treasury . . ."; Evolution of Earmarks; Budget Reforms; The Congressional Budget Process Today; Authorization vs. Appropriations: Supporting Museums in America; Conclusion; Further Reading; Part I Congress, the Executive, and Earmarks; Chapter 3 Responding to Local Conditions; The Current Earmark System: From Idea to Earmark; Earmarks at Home; Conclusion; Further Reading |
Chapter 4 Earmarks and the National InterestHuman Genome Project; John Porter and NIH; The Predator Drone; Promoting the Work of Congress; Conclusion; Further Reading; Chapter 5 Earmarks and the Executive Branch; Balance of Power; Earmarks and the "Valley of Death"; Weapons of Policy: Earmarks and MRAPs; Hazards of Executive Control; Conclusion; Further Reading; Part II Earmarks, the Media, and Lobbyists; Chapter 6 Earmarks and the Media; Bias in the Media; The Changing Media Landscape; Poor Reporting: A Case in Point; Media Coverage of Earmarks; Conclusion; Further Reading |
Chapter 7 Lobbyists and EarmarksWhy Groups Need Lobbyists; Lobbyists and Congress; Redressing Inequalities; Lobbyists and the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earmarks "Explosion"; Lobbyists and Campaign Contributions; Conclusion; Further Reading; Part III The Earmarks Explosion and the Paradox of Reform; Chapter 8 The Explosion of Earmarks; Democratic Reforms of the 1970s and the Chairmanship of Jamie Whitten; The Republican Revolution: Gingrich, DeLay, and Hastert; Conclusion; Further Reading; Chapter 9 Earmarks and the Paradox of Reform; Reform Goals; Reducing Corruption; Transparency Breeds Contempt; Conclusion; Notes |
IndexAbout the Authors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
It has become part of US political convention to attack 'earmarks' - legislative provisions that direct funds to specific projects - as wasteful and corrupt. In this provocative book Scott A. Frisch and Sean Q. Kelly argue that in fact earmarks are good for American democracy. Using extensive interviews with Washington insiders and detailed examples they illustrate how earmark projects that were pilloried in fact responded to the legitimate needs of local communities, needs that would otherwise have gone unmet. They also demonstrate that media coverage of earmarks tends to be superficial and overly-dramatic. Cheese Factories on the Moon is a much-needed challenge to a widespread but deeply flawed 'consensus' about what is wrong with US congressional spending. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |