For so long we have sent lawyer after lawyer to Washington (DC) to look out for our interests. The question is are we satisfied with what they have done? I know that I am not. In Congress Republicans and Democrats alike voted for the war, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, and continue to vote yea for increased spending in Iraq–if they voted at all. Despite warnings about the coming economic crisis in this country from the former Comptroller General of the United States, who resigned his position in February of 2008, they chose to continue with the status quo and overspend, overspend, overspend.
They make promises that they cannot keep when it comes to the social programs and entitlement benefits in the United States. There are no funds for this. Our dollar is seriously devalued which is going to lead to ever increasing prices on everything. On one hand they say tax cuts while on the other promising one payer health care. Where are they planning to get the funding? As the dollar’s value continues to lessen–for many reasons such as the growing public debt, the growing removal of commodities pricing from the USD to the EU and the continued printing of dollars that aren’t backed by a gold standard–fewer countries are going to want to loan us money. We are already indebted to Japan and China to the tune of about $1 trillion.
Think about it. Let’s say you started a big business. You took many, many loans from the bank and consistently only pay on part of the interest and at the same time you borrow smaller amounts from friends claiming that when they retired you would take care of all of their expenses and medical care. You do this over a long period of time and your debt to the bank increases until you owe considerably more than your net worth. You still owe this debt to your friends whose contributions didn’t even come close to how much you are going to have to pay out to them and they are beginning to retire. The bank won’t loan you any more money, you owe huge sums to your friends and you aren’t even managing to pay the bills to keep your business running or even your home.
If you did this you would be in jail, but this is exactly what our government has been doing over time. And even in the much touted “balanced budget” Clinton years the federal debt (public debt) increased by more than $1.3 trillion according to TreasuryDirect.gov.
At some point this has to come to an end. Do you think sending the same kind of people over and over to DC is the answer? Did you know that at no point in the history of the United States has there been no public debt? That’s correct, not one single year. Isn’t it time to try something different? By all means, if you think things are great and that government is doing a very fine job go ahead and send one more typical politician to Washington. But if you think that it’s time for a change, if you think that it’s time that we begin to send Congress a message that we want change, then vote for someone who actually would be a change. Don’t send any more lawyers. If we get the choice, let’s send doctors and economists, physicists and chemists, philosophers and engineers. And if we can let’s send some basic, hard-working, real people who can really represent us–like plumbers, electricians and construction workers. Let’s even send hairdressers and dancers. Pretty much anyone else we send has got to do better than the lawyers have and a good mix of varying types of people would have to represent the interests of the people much better. Now we just have to find ones who are crazy enough to run.
Tags: Serena Entries
2 responses so far ↓
1
Richard A.
// Jun 11, 2008 at 8:33 pm
You generalize too much here. Most of this country’s Founding Fathers were lawyers, and yet you have to agree that the outcome was very positive, fantastically positive in fact. I believe if you sent, as you suggest, hairdressers and construction workers to Congress, you would get precisely the same outcome as you now get with all the lawyers. The problem is not the vocation of the individuals going into the Beltway, but rather what happens to them once they get there. Washington is a Big Government town. Washington warps individuals’ sense of reality. Rather than focusing on electing non-lawyers to Congress, I say cut the legislative year by one-half, at least. Our Founders never considered politics to be a full-time career. Many were farmers or business owners at the same time they legislated. I say send them all home for but a couple months in the year, and you will have a legislature that is far more in touch with values and goals of the electorate.
2
efflorescent
// Jun 13, 2008 at 5:52 am
Richard,
Thank you and you do have some valid points. Yes, some of the founding fathers were lawyers or had some legal training. Thomas Jefferson for example was a lawyer but first he studied history, science, math and philosophy with a passion. In addition he was a horticulturist, an architect, archaeologist, inventor and an author.
And a lawyer in today’s consumerist economy probably is vastly different than a lawyer in the late 1700s.
But in the founding fathers were also physicians, plantation owners and farmers, scientists, merchants and land-speculators. They held a wide range of high and middle-class occupations.
And two of our current least corrupt politicians, at least in my estimation of what is or isn’t corrupt, we have a doctor in Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich holds degrees in speech and communication.
Are all the lawyers in Congress corrupt? No, I don’t believe so. Do I really want hair dressers going to DC? No. That was a dramatic flair to indicate my opinion on continuing to send the same kind of people every time, that even someone as potentially, but not necessarily, as politically clueless as a hairdresser couldn’t do worse than what we have been getting.
And I did, indeed, generalize in the last paragraph. This is a blog -an opinion piece infused with some facts. It is not a 60-page dissertation where I can go into gross detail.
But I do appreciate your input and you will get no argument from me in regards to your proposed length of the legislative year, especially when tied with less government interference in the lives of the people and substantially lower Congressional salaries.
Serena
Leave a Comment