Monday, July 02, 2007

Dear Madam Speaker:

Speaker Pelosi, do tell. The Congress has the lowest approval rating perhaps ever in its history, and you continue to disavow any part in it even though you have been a part of that institution since 1988. You merely wring your hands and state, “Congress has never been popular.” Why do you suppose this to be an accurate assessment? Could it be that the only thing the Congress can be counted on to accomplish is that which would professionally and financially benefit its members or its member’s families? Of course, this could not be it. It must be those darned Republicans/Democrats (depending on who’s speaking into the microphone at the time).

The Congress overall is perhaps the most ineffective government institution, and yet individual members continue to blame “________” (fill in the blank. Any answer is as good as the next.). And with a presidential race already – and prematurely, I might add – heating up, the American people can expect little else beyond what we are seeing now: two opposing parties desperately clambering for more control (read “power”) and a greater majority, wasting time wishing for something instead of dealing with the existing realities. What we have before us in the Congress is nothing more than a school-yard shoving and shouting match with most communication (read “name-calling”, “finger-pointing”) being done via media sound bites. Nothing will be accomplished just as nothing has been accomplished because few have the temerity or the tenacity to put a stop to it, especially those so-called “leaders”. It is much easier to blame someone else than to step up to the plate like the LEADER each claims to be. After all, there is an election season right around the corner. DOING the right thing is not nearly as effective as speaking into a well-placed microphone about who is to blame for the right thing never having been done, and it is especially effective to blame the institution itself as inherently troubled and beyond the scope and reach of man to correct.

Sad to say, however, that Speaker Pelosi’s statement about Congress “never” having been popular is a sorry reflection of the general voting public. In a nutshell, we are getting what we asked for. How can it be, for instance, that Congress as a body and as an institution has “never” been popular with the people, yet an individual incumbent has a better than 90% chance that he or she will be reelected? What does this say about the American public? Not much, I’m afraid, and what little such things do say about the voting public is not favorable. We are complacent, and soon we will pay dearly for our lack of attention. The truth is, while the Democrats insist that they are trying to hold the president accountable, there is no one willing to hold the Congress accountable.

One of the big congressional issues currently being tossed back and forth as the other party’s “fault” is earmarks, better known as “pork barrel politics” by which incumbents bring home the bacon to congressional districts as “proof” that they are as effective as legislators as their campaign materials would have us to believe. The issue at hand on these earmarks is whether or not the mark’s sponsor should be identified at the outset. To be perfectly honest, how this is an issue in and of itself is a mystery to me considering that the congressman or senator is all too happy to attach his or her name to the cash once it reaches its intended destination with more than enough photo ops to go around on reelection circulars.

Earmarks, however, are not as much of a congressional procedural problem as they are a payoff to a complacent voting public that continues to demand irresponsible stewardship of limited resources while decrying deficit spending, apparently failing to realize where the money comes from. While we are happy to have new opportunities presented to our districts that may translate into new jobs, we fail to make the connection between these millions of dollars in not-so-important projects and the budget deficit or the national debt; it is much easier to blame the sitting president. It is our ignorance of basic civics that allows us to get caught up in the blame-gaming and name-calling. Since the president is only one person with a name, he is much easier to blame especially since a budget proposal actually comes from the office of the President. After it reaches the Congress, however, it’s a whole new ball game. By the time a finalized version of this same budget makes it to the president, he can sign it or veto it since it is highly unlikely that the new budget will look anything like what he originally proposed. The ultimate power to spend money rests with the Congress and no other, the very same Congress that currently enjoys a 20% approval rating which is, incidentally, much lower than the president’s current approval rating.

There is indeed a problem, Madam Speaker, but I am more inclined to believe that the problem which does exist in the Congress is merely indicative of a greater problem, and the problem will continue for as long as a complacent voting public continues to vote for a more familiar name instead of actually paying attention to the business of this nation.

Do tell, indeed.

No comments: