On a Philosophical Washington

With the recent budget discussion in our rear-view mirror and with seemingly more difficult budget discussions in the days ahead, political pundits on both sides are making their case about who won the last round, who has the upper hand for future discussion, and so on.

Hmmm. President Obama appoints a budget commission that releases a report that he neither endorsed or condemned. Then, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) releases a budget that is probably from a conservative think-tank that promotes the GOP. Of course, we also have the Gang of Six believing they can develop a compromising budget in a partisan atmosphere.

President Obama wants Congress to raise the debt ceiling, something that he voted against as a senator. As the GOP continues to portray itself as budget hawks, they continue to fail to accept the responsibility for the 2000-2006 deficit growth. Yet the Democrats attempt to be rational cutters while failing to own up to their spending habits.

I say – blah, blah, blah. As Washington attempts to give the public the impression they are working toward finding a solution, let us remember that their primary concern is their re-election bids and their party’s bankroll.  The majority of Americans want our national government to seek meaningful solution, yet Washington continues to be all about the party  – thus delivering the message that playing politics is paramount to delivering solution.

What if they made an effort to think, discuss, listen, and work toward meaningful solutions? What if Washington took a philosopher’s approach to problem solving? Then again, just as in this gathering of famous philosophers, the outcome still produced winners, losers, and disputes.

On an Unconstitutioinal What If

These pages provide ample evidence that I’m not a big fan of the current Congress. These pages also show that I criticized both sides of the aisle, thus I suspect many people will agree with this post – then again, I know the partisans won’t because they are want they are – biased by definition. So let me set the stage for my proposal.

I’m tired of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Boehner, and Rick Cantor. I’m equally tired of Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and their lieutenants.

I’m tired of the bully pulpit approach used by the Congressional Democrats; yet I’m also tired of the Republican obstructionist approach.

I’m tired of the members of Congress who don’t have the guts to vote against their party’s position.

I’m tired of more effort going into finger pointing blame than going into finding solutions.

I’m tired of Congress attaching pork to bills.

I’m tired of Congress’s continual failure to attack big issues with a defined purpose.

I’m tired of the Party First attitude trumping the country’s needs.

I’m tired of the effect lobbyists have on Congress.

I’m tired of Congress attaching amendments to a bill that is unrelated to the bill’s premise.

I’m tired of members of Congress who withhold support until they get something for home.

I’m simply tired of Congress. Unfortunately, I can only vote for three of the 465 members: my one representative and my two senators.

I know my forthcoming question is unconstitutional, but it is worth asking. If there was a national referendum to vote every member of Congress out, how you vote?

Remember, every means everyone … not everyone but, or everyone except. Everyone, including those representing you and those that you respect.