I occasionally contribute here, and I have a topic I’d like to address, but I question if my sentiments are appropriate. I’m truly a believer that our government needs an overhaul…weeding out the career earners in Congress, replacing them with more forward thinking individuals, and placing term limits so we never find ourselves with politicians who are more interested in padding their own pockets over representing the voters. Sadly, I found an article that disputes my belief that doing what I think would help might actually be harmful to our system by weeding out the good politicians with the bad. Actually, according to statistics, I don’t see too many “good” electees there. In fact one man ambled in the other day for a celebration of his congressional longevity.. He must be close to 80…at least looked and acted it. I also recall a time when one person was carried in on a stretcher in order to cast an all important vote. My thinking, as a senior citizen…age steals a persons ability to think as sharply as they did years ago, and I know from experience I don’t think or talk as fast on my feet as I once did. I am certainly more enthused and interested in politics than I was as a younger person, but unsure through which channels one would attempt to initiate changes. I think my preceding generations consider other things more important and think they’ll have time later to change their viewpoints. Sadly, by the time that happens, it may be too late.
My contention is that there is too much divisiveness in Congress, probably caused by having drawn a line in the sand and defending anything to represents that side. The two party system should be abolished and we should unify by voting the person not the party. Most loyalties to party ties seem to filter down through family legacy and not by choice. I offer the following link to those who have served longest in Congress, and I have no doubt if a brain tumor had not taken Ted Kennedy, he would still be there. Clearly, new incoming electees will never make headway when the room is filled with old schoolers who think in the past.
Now that you’ve read my viewpoints…I offer the following information to the contrary. I’m not entirely sure how changing how Congress works is going to be harmful because as I stated, I still see no “real value” in most of those elected officials like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner and several others, and I feel sorrow for those who are fighting for a new path, but are hindered by that “line in the sand.” Neither party can be right 100% of the time…probably not even 50%, so where is the harm in overhauling Congress and taking a good strong look at the laws as they apply today rather than passing new massive ones filled with pork-barrel spending that no one bothers to read prior to signing.
After you’ve read both perspectives, I invite you to set your family legacy aside along with historical facts about their successes/failures and consider a new approach to law making and a manner in which those laws are administered. I’d be very interested to hear your viewpoints.
To the end, I offer the following link: It wasn’t long ago that a man physically beat his wife in public because the state in which he lived deemed it legal. He was NOT held accountable. So…before your husband starts demanding you seek his approval before heading for the hair salon, you might want to rethink your answers.