It Really Is About "We The People."

Someone recently said to me, "I believe that our current political climate is so polarized that government cannot function." Now, don't give me that, sarcastic "when has government ever functioned."

First, let us understand that while government should follow accepted accounting principles as it handles the people's money and is accountable for how that money is spent. But let us be clear, the United States Government is not a business; it is a political body. It is not Constitutionally designed to turn a profit and from it's inception at the Continental Congress was running a deficit and borrowing money. The founding Fathers may not have particularly liked it but they recognized that the government they were forming (that more perfect union) was going to have to borrow money to become a reality and borrow they did.

For my Christian brothers I need to affirm that there is no sin in borrowing money regardless of what the Christian financial gurus might say. We may borrow when we shouldn't but there is no sin in borrowing money. A quick take on money and the Christian can be found in Luke 12:16-21. By the way, a balanced budget does not rule out having debt. A balanced budget is nothing more than a financial spreadsheet where the outlay and the income when combined equal zero. One might say that if you have a surplus of income you do not have a balanced budget just as easily as you would say it if your expenses exceeded you income. But I digress

Back to the the government. As I said, it is not a business and was never intended to turn a profit or carry large reserves. It was designed to meet the needs of the nation as defined by the actions of the people's elected representatives in both houses of Congress and consented to by the sitting President. These needs would be decided through debate and persuasion and strength of argument as our elected representatives seek to bring their colleagues to a particular point of view and action. Some of these needs are as specific as the "common defense" and as undefined as the "general welfare."

Ideally this would be done on the basis of careful thought and sound reasoning flowing from facts and not feelings and/or beliefs. Certainly we can feel and believe strongly but in our system these cannot be forced upon the conscience of others. Everyone is entitled to their own feelings and beliefs but NOT their own set of facts. When our beliefs and feelings on an issue are at variance with other's belief's and feelings on any issue our system of government demands compromise not obstruction.

The founding father's envisioned the Congress as a place of debate and persuasion were men of good will worked through issues and came to a consensus of opinion that allowed the government to function. Once this consensus was arrived at through a vote in each of the two houses it them had to meet the approval of the sitting President at the time. The "Tea Party Patriots" by holding the Congress and the whole United States government hostage as they have done in the recent debt ceiling legislation have acted more like terrorists than representatives of the people.

Why is it every time we can't get our elected officials to conduct themselves properly and vote the way we want we try to change the Constitution rather than follow it. We don't need a Constitutional amendment to force our elected officials to do what we want . . we simply need to replace them with someone else. Let's elect people who will do the right thing because it is the right thing to do not because some segment of the population demands we do it.

The answer to our unhappiness with what we perceive to be over-spending on the part of government is not to hamstring the Congress' through a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget but by going to the polls and voting. If your congressman is voting for every spending bill that comes along and you don't like it vote for someone else or run for office yourself.

However, once elected that representative of the people must be free to act upon the facts before him/her and not be held to the feelings and belief's of his/her constituency. To do otherwise is to make them puppets on a string and take away their ability to use the good sense and judgment we believed them to have when we elected them. (Don't tell me you voted for them knowing they didn't have good sense and judgement.)

If anyone in my district runs on a "Tea Party" endorsement I am going to interpret that to mean their position on every issue is "don't confuse me with the facts my mind is already made up" and I will vote for their opponent. If that's too harsh put the blame where it belongs on that segment in the U.S. House of Representatives known as the "Tea Party Patriots." As someone recently commented to me, "The idea of "e pluribus unum" is foreign to them." Men who cannot (better: will not)compromise can serve no useful purpose in a forum that by its very nature requires compromise. Their acts of extortion in the Debt Ceiling issue has just about blinded me to any merits their ideas may have and some of their ideas do have merit.