February 23rd, 2010

Representation of the American people has become as much an illusion as a polar bear in the desert (or, for that matter, in the arctic) these days. It's no more than a facade put up to coax people into believing that their votes matter. Really, they don't - while, yes, it is true that your votes put someone into office, there is virtually no guarantee that the person you expected is the person you receive. Worse yet, the person you voted in most probably isn't considering your best interests, as he was elected to do, but either his party's or his funding allies.

Consider last week... several Republican senators had finally compromised with the Democrats on a bill. Before they could even say how it would help the people, they flipped their position as soon as President Obama said he was for the bill. How can you be for a bill and then suddenly decide it's no longer good on such a superficial level? For you Republican senators, please take note: the president doesn't make the laws, you do. Yes, the president may have an agenda you oppose, but that does not mean you radically oppose ANY bill that the he agrees with. In a comic I read the other day (I cannot find the link at this time), if the president and the democratic party supported a "love puppies" bill, there would be a "hate puppies" bill on the floor the next day.

I'm not saying that Democrats are without their fair share of blame on that point either, but the ability for congress to do anything when Republicans are in the minority suddenly becomes nearly impossible. Especially so when a Democrat is president. News flash: Your party is not in jeopardy just because you're in the minority. In fact, becoming hypocrites and ultra-defensive about your party makes you appear even more incompetent. Unfortunately, much of your fan base disregards this and continues to put you into power.

Our founding fathers never intended for such a divisive country. Patrick Henry stated, "United we stand, divided we fall, Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs." This quote, now more than ever, perfectly describes the United States today. The fact that we cannot agree on a measure as simple as public health care when all other developed countries of the world have such is ridiculous (and the argument that it would get rid of Medicare is irrelevant, clearly). (On that note, to continue arguing that we need lower taxes while complaining about the deficit is insanity. Most developed countries have income tax at near 30%; however, education and health care are free, as well as a multitude of other services. If you divide the costs of these essential services over the course of your lifetime, you'd (most likely) find that you'd spend more privately than you would lose in income tax.)

Perhaps, though, the reason we are so divided, is because the Federal Government now holds far more responsibility than it did in years past... perhaps it's time to redesign Congress. Even now, our Congress does not fit the bill. The House of Representatives is supposed to have one representative per 30,000 people. This would mean that today, the House would hold over 10,000 members.

Perhaps the House should be divided into an X number of subgroups with 100 persons each. Each subgroup would have its own agenda to take care of, akin to a committee; however, there's a catch. Each subgroup would have two (or more) representatives to the actual House, which then votes on the bills. Every 2 years, there would need to be 2 people voted in per subgroup per state. (Meaning if there are 5 subgroups of Congress, there would need to be 10 elected representatives from each state).

This will never happen, of course, as any change this radical would never be implemented. It is unfortunate, though, that so quickly after the founding fathers passed, the United States became so averse to touching the Constitution or altering the national government. The government we have today is one the founding fathers never expected, though Benjamin Franklin alludes to such, "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

The founding fathers expected there to be radical change to the constitution and our national government as time went on, but somehow this got lost in translation and became "stick to the constitution" as if it were not possible to create a more perfect union. A lot has changed in 223 years...

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson