Why is Congress Still Getting Paid?

I, for one, completely understand what Congress is doing.  You see, when I was 11, I had my own bat and ball.  I was the only kid in the neighborhood with a bat and ball.  And when the game wasn’t going my way, I would take my bat and ball and go home.  That would end the game and really teach those other kids.  The only difference between me and Congress is that I grew up!  What in the world is going on?
I have always considered myself a Republican.  I think the reason is that I believe in strong national security.  And through the years, I have seen the military being cut to the bone by the Democrats and grown and nourished by Republican administrations.  That’s a message that doesn’t go unnoticed.  The other issue I’m big on is fiscal responsibility and the Republicans get better marks there.
I’m not a fanatic on right to life or a woman’s right to choose.  I understand both sides and wish them well.  I strongly support the Second Amendment, but have no problem with large, dangerous cities using their police powers to try to control hand guns.  And, I can’t think of one legitimate reason why a private citizen needs to have an automatic weapon.
Now that I am no longer 11, I don’t understand what Congress is doing.  During my military career, I had the good fortune to attend the Army War College.  One of their main messages was, “what got you here is not going to work for you in the future.”  As a junior officer, everything was black or white.  No shades.  Orders were followed and never questioned.  Now, as a senior officer you had to deal with people who could say, “No.”  What you did as a junior officer would no longer work.  You couldn’t tell Congress you wanted so many tanks and so many artillery pieces.  You had to be willing to negotiate and compromise.  I remember what went into The Civil Rights Act of 1968.  Both sides of the isle fighting for what they believed in and then compromising for the good of the country.
That’s probably why I am so unhappy with Obamacare.  It wasn’t both sides negotiating for the good of the country.  It was one side ignoring the other side and forcing the law down its throat.  And it was passed in the dark of the night without hardly anyone knowing what was in it.  BUT, it passed Congress and was signed by the President and the Supreme Court decided it was constitutional.  It may not work, but it is at this particular moment, the law of the land.  If it fails or turns out to be a disaster, I’m sure we can fix it or get rid of it.  But for the House Republicans to take their bat and ball and go home is really stupid. The country deserves a budget and the Republicans are going to take the major blame for this idiotic trick.
I have something I call GM Speak.  That is when senior officials from General Motors only discuss issues with other GM officials. Everybody will agree, but it may not even be close to correct.  There is also Army Speak.  Same thing.  Now, we have “Tea Party Speak.”  As long as they just talk to each other, they will all agree.  And it won’t be until the Democrats control everything that they will wake up.  I heard ex-governor Palin talking about a third party.  That’s a great idea.  Let’s split the Republican Party because some of those rascal Republicans are too close to the “center.”  
The American people deserve to have their government funded.  If something, like Obamacare, doesn’t work, it will be changed or thrown out.  The Republicans in the House are so far out on a limb that I don’t know how they can recover.  They may be secretly hoping for a hurricane.  I don’t even think that will work!
Written by PJ Rice at www.ricequips.com

2 thoughts on “Why is Congress Still Getting Paid?”

  1. Good comments. Your baseball analogy vs. your War College training is a great example of a parent-adult-child situation. The White House and Senate are playing the parent, dictatorial. The average voter and American businesses, the adults in the room, are shaking their heads in disbelief. What are these guys thinking, and why should we pay for any of this? Unfortunately, change is unlikely, and if the Tea Party is a de facto third party, we can count on an Obama clone being elected in 2016. Except for the mosquitos, the banana republics are beginning to look more attractive.

  2. It is a real pleasure to agree with you for a change. At least, with the primary point of your comment as I understand it: our representatives in Congress should work together for the good of the country, as adults do (or rather, as our idealized adults are supposed to be doing: they don’t always).

    Where I differ is in your assessment of Obamacare. I did not follow the procedure well enough to judge your view of how the law came to be (from my understanding, the President was so exasperated by the unwillingness of the Republican House to work with him (remember: ‘our primary purpose is to make Obama a one-term president’, as one or more of the Republicans had, reportedly, said) that there was little alternative than to push something through, however imperfect (which it was because it lacked a ‘public option’; this werks really well in all other civilized countries).

    On this one I’d still say: let’s give Obamacare a few years, see what doesn’t work and what does, and then imporve things in a cooperative (as they say, ‘bipartisan’) manner. But, to do this we (as a country) have to agree that some form of reasonably complete health care for all citizens, also the poor ones, is a hallmark of a civilized country that we should strive for. Doesn’t the Constitution say something about ‘pursuit of freedom and happiness’ and ‘Government is instituted for the common benefit of all’? If it’s true for National Defense, why would it not be true for health, education, and welfare?

    A second, historical argument is: look at who the people are who oppose Obamacare? are those the same people (not the party, the people) who objected against equal rights for black in the 1960? And, didn’t Lincoln push through the emancipation proclamation against the will of many in Congress? Weren’t those the right decisions, in retrospect?

    Will this be the same with universal health care? I strongly suspect this is so, and I’m more than willing to bet you a case of champagne that universal health care will no longer be controversial 25 years from now.

Comments are closed.