While that’s all true, I think it’s more that I just want Democrats to prioritize their constituents, and obviously, that will include many rural districts such as WA-03 if they gain a trifecta. And Republicans can join in, too, if they actually agree to vote for these bills instead of attacking 1/
them. The practice that needs to end is a bill including pork for districts whose politicians then simultaneously run against the bill and then show up at the ribbon-cutting. Wanting the benefits of a safety net means supporting, not undermining, the safety net. 2/2
Yes, I agree with bills prioritizing constituents - that's a part of the job of a representative in a SMD! One question, though, is which programs/expenditures are amenable to selective constituent focused expenditure w/o losing overall efficacy. Bridges, sure. Medical insurance programs? Probs not.
And yes, credit-claiming against the record (IE for projects funded by bills you voted against or programs you voted to cut) is a huge problem. But that's an electoral question, not one easily solved through policy or chamber rules. A good opponent can skewer you on negative ads about that stuff.