Can You Top This?

No. It's not a TV game show. Maybe it should be. It does have all the necessary ingredients for success - plenty of action,touches of humor, originality, occasional drama,  and enough $$$$ to hand out to eager players to break the bank. Any bank! Hey, I've got a better idea -let's call it "Break The Bank!".

OK. Let's skip the day dream. This is too serious to fool around. You see  - I'm talking about The United States Congress. That institution that has once again has made it perfectly clear that it is largely composed of individuals who, in the oft used WWII expression to describe a person who knows not why they are where they  are, have 'struck a home'! The words out of Washington since President Obama miscalculated the ability of his own party to follow their leader, are rife with astonishing verbal declarations from the opposition. It is incredible that supposedly intelligent legislators can mouth the kinds of negative thinking that makes one wonder if they really believe what they say, or do they simply make it up whenever they have a microphone thrust in front of their ready lips!

The question is: do elected servants of the people, Congressmen and women, go about their daily chores in governing the country by mouthing positions held by their constituents, or are we hearing individuals speak their minds without regard for what the folks back home may think!

This is too important to get into a hassle about freedom of speech, or party lines, or ego trips. Every man and woman elected to office as a member of the most significant body of legislators anywhere, has the absolute right to speak out on the issues at hand. In fact, the duties of the members of Congress are clearly stated to be free to vote their own conscience, or that of their constituents. That's not this writer's opinion. It is the essence of the responsibility accepted by the candidates for office - and, the people who vote that person into office!

The decision that must be made when contemplating one's vote is not to be taken lightly. A hard and fast position on the Second Amendment, for example, may be popular with one group of voters back home - but an anathema to another faction. The candidate is not likely to cast a vote in the House based on knowledge  that swings one way or the other among those voters. If the issue is sufficiently critical to affect the country at  large, should the Congressman base his, or her, vote on current reactions among constituents, or cast the vote strictly the way he, or, she has always interpreted the issue? The basic decision can easily be a vital point in keeping that House member reelected. 

A similar problem arises when the Member is faced with a matter of conscience having nothing to do with voting. Again, if the Member has openly stated  hard and fast opposition to abortion, for example, should that position influence the Member's vote when abortion is even mentioned in connection with a pending debate on Health Care for millions? Is it good government when the vote decision is based solely on that opposition, although, the only question is whether the final bill will provide payment to a constituent who faces an abortion and has no faith based objection? In other words, can the  bill be defeated penalizing millions because abortion is an anathema to a Member of the House? And, it might be added, how secure is the Member's knowledge factor when using the angry reaction of constituents to the Member's stand despite the absence of any poll, or other means of knowing exactly how the folks back home feel about abortion? Will a vocal reaction at home, possibly well financed by major Health Care providers, make the issue moot?

Not sure you believe this diatribe? Let me ask you a question. Do you think a candidate for a seat in the House of Representatives is required to take an oath of office when elected? If you replied "Yes" you are correct. But do you know that the oath is nothing more than a promise to uphold the constitution of the United States, and to perform the  duties of the office to the best of one's ability. Nothing is said about delivering to the people the promises made, the need to perform with an open mind, the assurance that carrying out the duties of the office does not necessarily follow the party line of the political body that enabled the candidate to run for office. 

Would all members of Congress better serve the country if such an oath existed. Would it be an opportunity for the elected individual to openly inform the voters who put him, or her, in office that the issue at stake, any issue, is not sacrosant - that the vote of this member of Congress will be purposely delivered as the true position of the individual irrespective of party line, possibly unlike some campaign promises, said with certitude that the vote is intended to be in the best interests of the citizens of the United States of America.

 It should be a positive boost to the members of that august body, that voting freely with an open mind, is proof to the citizens of this country, and to the world at large, that America demonstrates the power of the free mind, not just when actions are dictated by conscience, or by campaign promises, but by turning issues into laws that benefit the greatest number of voters who become beneficiaries. 

President Obama came in to office determined to change the way we are governed. Let us start right here in the halls of Congress. It will be more than a breath of fresh air. It will restore America's right to lead the world.

Richard Carlton

March 15, 2010

Issue No. 5