“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt

President George Washington

In his farewell address to the United States of America, President George Washington made comments that allow me to think he had vision that extended to the present day, even to the rancorous, bitter politics of the recent past and the current election:

“…Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection…” (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)

Before I continue, let me remind everyone that the President of The United States of America can not write legislation. He can request, support, sign or veto laws, but the legislation itself comes from Congress. Therefore, it is in the President’s, and Congress’s, best interest to work together for the good of the American people.

The immature and disrespectful attitude displayed by Congress toward the American people shows that no member of either party is deserving of re-election. We, the people, hire our Representatives and Senators to “do the Nation’s business.” They are expected, at a minimum, to provide for the nation’s defense, promote the general good, properly regulate commerce and industry, engage in treaties and agreements in America’s favor; and keep the promise of America alive for our youth.

In my opinion, they have failed miserably over the past 12 years. The loud rabble on the extreme right and left have caused the Congress to sway precipitously left and then right, never to establish a comfortable center-stage, where the majority of Americans wish them to be. The art of compromise, upon which this country was founded, has been discarded for “victory at all costs” for one party or faction over the other. This is not what the American mainstream wants from Congress. Polls of the American people conducted by Gallup, Newsweek, Rasmussen, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal consistently point to a low level of credibility and job performance of Congress. The first question is, why; the second, what can be done?

Here are some of my musings on this issue.
First and foremost, as pointed out by President Washington in his address, is party ideology. We have become so saturated by “The Republicans stand for this” and “The Democrats stand for this” to the point we no longer look at the person running for office, just which party he or she belongs to. No longer do we hear enough about what the candidate running for office believes or thinks, we just hear that he or she is a Democrat or a Republican. Rather than run on their individual accomplishments, goals or visions, they campaign on their own party line or against the other party. This party ideology denies us as citizens the privilege to choose the candidates who express thoughts and opinions that best reflect the majority of any specific voter’s ideas.

Second, our legislators are running for office again the day they take office. The cost of running a campaign has hit historical and ridiculously high figures. Politicians are constantly fundraising in one form or another. They are busy meeting with prospective high dollar donors, lobbyists, and “special interest groups.” With the advent of Pacs, SuperPacs, 527, 501c4’s and legislative Pacs, they are now beholden to money, not to the people. So busy fundraising are they, in fact, they don’t have time to construct, read or consider legislation; those functions are now delegated to staffers, or worse, to lobbyists who have staff to construct, read and provide the Congressman the condensed version of the bill.

Third, and perhaps most insidiously, is power. “I will be the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee next term, think what that will do for Utah”, claimed one of our Senators. (The only effect I saw was the further de-regulation of the banking community, to the citizen’s peril.) Power in Washington is derived from longevity, and from trading favors (votes in session) one legislator to another.

So, what do I propose?

First, term limits, including limits on a politician’s ability to move from one house of Congress to the other.

Second, effective and enforced campaign finance reform is far overdue. Eliminate the use of PACS, SUPERPACS, 527’s, 501c4’s, bundling, and any other forms of special interest money, including corporation and union money. This includes re-writing the tax code to prohibit these types of “corporations” and overturning the Citizens United judgment of the Supreme Court.

Third, eliminate or control the lobbyists. Don’t allow them to write or suggest legislation; eliminate all the money and perks they bring to the Congressmen. Enact ethics legislation that prohibits Congressmen, and their families, from accepting jobs from lobbyists for a reasonable time after the Congressman leaves his/her office.

Fourth, ethics reform needs to be in place. Make sure Congressmen understand they may lose the position they have been elected to for violation of ethics. Put in place strong regulation, refine it as time and necessity require, and make it stick.

My conclusion: if the American citizens desire to bring Congress back to “doing the Nation’s business”, we need to act individually and collectively to bring reform to Congress. We need to remind them, by all means proper, they work for us. If reforms of the type I here suggest, and others of a like mind, were to be enacted, Congress would have time and willpower to work for the American people. Candidates for office would have to present to the voters reasons to elect them; they would not be able to flood our airwaves with negative advertisements and would perhaps be reduced to publishing position papers available and understandable to the majority of the voting public.

There is much more to be said and written about these pressing subjects. I hope I have provided some food for thought and discussion, as always your comments and opinions are welcome.
Robert M. “Bob” Hartman

The 800 pound Gorilla

While doing campaign work (knocking on doors) for a Democratic candidate in the last election, I stopped by a young family doing yard work. I offered my pamphlet to the father, and one of his children asked, “Dad, who are Democrats?” His reply still rings in my ears. “They are the ones who want abortion and gun control, not good for us.”

This article is about the 800 pound gorilla in the room, abortion. (I promise to talk about gun control later.)

I am sorry that this oft-spoken position is the (incorrect) opinion of Democrats as a whole. The candidate in question was very much pro-life. But it begs the bigger question, what about abortion? This has been a controversial subject for many years, on all sides of the political spectrum, and it has come up again with the rise of Willard “Mitt” Romney, who is now the Republican candidate for the office of President of the United States of America.

October 25, 1994: In Senate election debate in Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy accuses Romney of being "multiple choice" on abortion. Romney denies the charge, saying that he has supported abortion rights consistently since 1970 when his mother Lenore ran as a pro abortion rights candidate for the U.S. Senate candidate in Michigan. He linked his support for abortion rights to the death "many years ago" of a "dear, close family relative" following a botched illegal abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he adds.

October 29, 2002 "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."
— Mitt Romney, Massachusetts Governor election debate.

December 8, 2005: Romney reverses an earlier decision on the advice of his counsel and orders all hospitals in the state to make the "morning after" pill available to rape victims, over the protests of Catholic hospitals, who argue that this goes against their religious beliefs. A Boston Herald editorial says that Romney has "executed an Olympic-caliber double flip-flop with a gold medal-performance twist-and-a-half on the issue of emergency contraception."

June 15, 2007: Addresses National Right to Life convention. Says that even though he was "always personally opposed to abortion," he decided to support "the law as it was in place" as governor of Massachusetts. "I was wrong."

August 5, 2007 "Every action I have taken as governor of Massachusetts has been pro-life."
— Mitt Romney, Republican Debate

October 8, 2011. (Value Voter Summit, Washington DC.) Mr. Romney took the opportunity to talk about some of his positions on social issues.
“Now, the foundation needed for a strong economy and a strong military is a people of strong values,” Mr. Romney said, recalling that he was blessed to be raised by happily married parents whose example “led me to marry and have children, and now to bask in the joy of 16 grandchildren.”
He promised to support the Defense of Marriage Act and to appoint Supreme Court justices who would help overturn Roe v. Wade.
“We know that marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom — it’s also critical for the well-being of a civilization,” Mr. Romney said. “That’s why it’s so important to preserve traditional marriage, the joining together of one man and one woman.”
On abortion, he said, “Our values must encompass the life of an unborn child.”
“The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year can’t be squared with the good heart of America,” he said. “And I will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and law. It is long past time for the Supreme Court to return the issue of abortion back to the states by overturning Roe v. Wade.”
Mr. Romney, I respectively disagree with your side-swapping. It begs the larger question of what you would do as president of the United States of America. Will you be a man of principle, or of political gain?

This issue, abortion, is a charged issue, no doubt. I would rather that my wife, child, or grandchild never had to make this weighty decision. But I would rather that she could make it knowing it would be safe, unfettered, and made between her, her doctor, and her conscious, rather than made in Washington by men who do not know her reasons. Mr. Romney, get the politicians out of this discussion. The privilege to use, or not use birth control is a personal decision. A right to the availability of birth control should not be made by you, or any other politician. The right to have, or not have, an abortion does not need to be made by individuals not involved in the choice. This is not a decision to be made by you, by any president, or by any person aspiring to that office. It is a decision that needs to be made by the persons involved.

Your comments are welcome, as always.
RMH

I wrote this early on August 14, 2012. Mom passed late that day.
It has taken me a while to put it up, as I am still trying to understand everything that her life, and her death, mean to me.

Mother

It’s 0300 in my world
Don’t have a clue about yours
I’m wide awake and enjoying
The aches and pains of age.

Loud crickets, circling bats
Neighbors with restless pets
Fire trucks, police cars
Fill the empty night.

I know what’s coming,
I see the headlamp
Of the approaching train
No way to stop it, slow it down.

It’s on a schedule
No man wrote
Our time is determined
By another, not by us.

In His grace,
We are born
With His grace, we live
By His order, we die.

Restless, you roll the halls
Looking for salvation
As I study Holy Script
Looking for a reason.

I come up empty
Like so many years ago
When you thought you had the power
To call His wrath down on me.

When the train pulls
Into your station
And you climb aboard
No backward glance.

That’s your style
Tight lips, no wave
No long sorrowful goodbye
Turn away from me.

Go, ride away in peace
And leave me here
Our short time together
Always left me wondering

Was there something else
Something you tried to say?
Could not find the words?
I love you, with meaning

Would have been sufficient.
But those words
Did not fall
From your lips

Take your journey
Enjoy your trip
Knowing I am here
Wishing for you, peace.

Rest in Peace, Mother. Sylvia Eleanor (Hunter) Hartman passed August 14th, 2012. She was 90 years old.