Congressional Gridlock

We're at day nine of the American hostage crisis staged by our chose representatives, and there's really no end in sight.  Eventually something will get done, as it always does, but the question at that point will be what the cost of the shutdown was to the economy, not to mention to our democratic way of life.

As a fundamental issue, I'm against Obamacare.  It's the law, and we should have to obey its dictates no matter how distasteful it may be.  Ordinarily, that would be the end of the issue, until the opposing party could elect enough congresspeople to vote to overturn the law.  That's how the democratic process works. But those who are, in essence, allowing the government to be on shutdown, have a point.

Obamacare should apply to all people.  Instead, the administration has been cutting deals with certain entities that allow them to sidestep, if not wholly ignore, the process.  That's not part of the democratic process.  In fact, that's illegal, only that this was done by executive agreement, probably to entice the recipients of his largesse to continue to continue to vote for Democrats.  Whatever the reason, it stinks.

So the country is now in the position of gridlock because the Democratic powers are cutting sweetheart deals with favored groups, the Republicans want to delay implementation of Obamacare as has been done with favored groups -- if not repeal it outright -- and the American public by and large opposes Obamacare. The President is urging the Speaker of the House to have an up-or-down vote, knowing the Republicans can't win such a vote, which defies the will of the American people.  Meanwhile, the administration has cut side deals with favored parties that exempt them from participating in Obamacare -- a decidedly undemocratic maneuver -- with the President and his family not signing up for the very law he championed.

When the President urges the House to stop obstructing implementation of his pet project, he says that the people have spoken and the law was enacted democratically.  He's technically right, but in so arguing he's putting form over substance.  Various polls state unequivocally that the public opposes Obamacare.  If the President truly wants the will of the people to be represented, he'd delay the effective date of the law which, ironically, he's done for big business, the entity that could most easily afford to participate.  Instead, the people with relatively little political power and no political action committees to represent them, stands out in the cold having an unpopular law shoved down its collective throat.  In turn, the President resorts to name-calling, likening -- either himself or through his minions -- Repuublicans to terrorists or arsonists, hardly the language of negotiation.  Remember, this is the President who pledged to change the way Washington worked, expecting to usher in an era of bipartisanship rarely seen in the capital.

Republicans are hardly blameless in this.  Largely the party of impotence, it's grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to retain relevance on the political landscape.  It's claiming to represent the public's wishes, but if it did that better, wouldn't it already be in the majority?  Within the party itself there's a schism between moderates and the hardcore young turks.  It's amazing that there's anything approaching coherence coming out of that party.

Aside from the inconsistent application of the law by the Democrats, they're exemplifying the old saw What a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.  Shutting out veterans from visiting the World War II Memorial at the same time allowing an immigration reform rally on the Mall under the guise of standing up for free speech is spurious and disingenuous.  Not being able to give out numbers of people who have allegedly signed up in the exchanges and claiming that, as one official did, that a reporter's question seeking the number of people who have thus far signed up, the reporters isn't asking the right question is preposterous.  It's clearly a dodge, as evidenced by Kathleen Sibelius' appearance on The Daily Show.  Jon Stewart, as fun and smart as he may be, is not a journalist (although he may actually be better than those who claim to be), and if his questions can't -- or won't -- be answered, it's obvious something is afoot.

Ultimately, the problem rests with the electorate.  It's one thing to have honest convictions and vote for them. It's another to be lazy and not sift through the rhetoric to discern whether a candidate's stated position is truly borne by his actions.  For my money, the Democrats are hypocrites.  Don't take my word for it:

Republicans are elitist.  They probably have more issues in common with my beliefs, but the way they carry themselves is obnoxious.  The last thing I want is to be ruled by someone who believes himself to be better than me as a matter of birth.  There are some Republicans who are hoi polloi -- just as there are Democrats who don't speak out of both sides of their mouths -- but in both instances, the numbers are minuscule.  Yet incumbents are retained at a troubling rate -- something on the order of seventy-seven percent win reelection unless some tawdry scandal hits the airwaves.  In effect, we're getting what we pay for -- and we're not paying attention very well.

Right now, the only way the shutdown is affecting me personally is that it's delaying my passport renewal, which I need so I can get a driver's license in my new state.  Otherwise, the shutdown is a spectator sport for me.  Unfortunately, it's not a very appealing game in its essence.

It's just entertaining trying to watch the politicians utter their transparently false statements about wanting to do the best for the American people. All they really care about is maintaining power.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles