Though preferred solutions to these issues might differ, I think that the issues identified in these Gallup polls--which potential voters rank as the most important facing the country, or the most important in determining their votes in the congressional elections, would be hard to argue with: The situation in Iraq, terrorism, the economy & jobs, immigration, education and health care. Right now we are in the midst of the election season, and candidates are, to a greater or lesser extent, putting before the public their views on these issues, while trying, during the last few days that remain on the pre-election legislative calendar, to address some of these concerns (for example, building a wall to deter illegal immigration, adotping new rules governing the treatment of terrorism suspects held by the United States, and approving spending for operations in Iraq and Afghinistan. As citizens, we may or may not agree with what Congress is doing, we might prefer a more robust debate on these issues, we might even have preferred it if members of Congress had begun addressing these concerns much earlier in this legislative session rather than schedule so few working days.

Here's more information on the Center for Public Integrity's upcoming report on congressional travel sponsored by third parties. The Center has put together a database and a package of stories and analysis looking at the sponsors and the travelers--both elected representatives and their staff. As I mentioned below, I suspect that we'll find that Congress is flying as frequently on the dimes of special interests as it did in the past, although I'm curious to see whether the sponsors have changed all that much. When CPI looked at that same phenomenon for the 1998 book The Buying of the Congress by Charles Lewis, we analyzed a year and a half of travel disclosures--from 1996 and the first six months of 1997. Back then, we found, among the top 20 sponsors, the Aspen Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute, AIPAC, the Securities Industry Association, the Florida Sugar Cane League, the Edison Electric Institute, the Tobacco Institute, and the National Cable Television Association, to name a few.

Here's an interesting bit from a weekend Washington Post article on the increased pace of investment in ethanol producing plants in Iowa (and elsewhere):

"Every time a plant is built," said Bill Horan, "that's 500 more ethanol supporters in a congressman's district. And they really care. It's not just Ma and Pa on the farm. It's their dentist son in Chicago who's interested in his inheritance, and his sister in San Francisco."

... suppose the price of oil declines -- if, for example, the economies in China and India slip, the global oil market grows calm and a booming ethanol supply outstrips demand. Suppose Congress supports President Bush's recent call to eliminate the tariff of 54 cents a gallon on plentiful Brazilian ethanol.