Subscribe Email Updates
Home  /  Data US Congress, Data US House, Data US Senate, Issues, National News, The Constitution, X-2013  /  con·san·guine (adj.) /kän-ˈsaŋ-gwən
payday loans - daymoney Resources and Information.

con·san·guine (adj.) /kän-ˈsaŋ-gwən

July 25th, 2013

We see from a recent online report by National Journal that Republicans are oozing back to the swamp of earmarks and special interest favoritism, having succeeded in attracting electorate votes by the puffery of their biennial mating calls.

We readily concede that these politicians are a fascinating breed of chameleon—effortlessly able to switch their colors to confound accountability.  They are camouflaged, hidden when danger appears.  But when the threat of discovery has passed, they don their bright mating colors with “false pretenses of patriotism”.  George Washington warned us to beware such creatures in his Farewell Address—sadly to no avail.

Now that the Republican type (viz. their back-slithering on earmarks) have once again proven that they are genetically the same political animal as the Democrat type—saving name only—perchance our  Constitution Party is so bold as to recommend a far less consanguineal budgetary process?

Rather than the “back room” arrangements which lead to the deformity of earmarked special political favors—a particularly detestable practice akin to consuming your own kind—CP-Idaho suggests an infusion of new vigor, wholly untried by the closely cavorting pair of political parties now wallowing in the slippery shallow mud of the District of Columbia.

We realize that we risk “aghast” gapes by the current homogeneous federalist duopoly.  And, we realize that it is entirely taboo by today’s fashion to speak in any terms other than loathing on the Confederacy.  But we nevertheless suggest that those Confederates were, in one respect at least, on to something.

They recommended in their Constitution of the Confederate States that “Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”  It too occurs to us that all individual projects ought to be put up to a vote upon that expenditure’s merits.  After all, federal funding is being proposed.  This is the correct way to have an open and accountable government.  So if Alaska needs a bridge to some island, a vote on its specific merits and costs is in order.

Do not tell us that this would “take too long”…federal budgets are right now so “efficient” that they are routinely overdue, and overdue to the point that continuing resolutions are expected.  The annual fiscal budget so-called deadline has pushed further and further toward Christmas nearly a full fiscal quarter late.  Soon it will routinely be past New Year’s.  Also, do not tell us that ordinary Americans are too hardhearted, or that they would beggar their neighbor of necessary projects… the massive generosity of common Americans in times of natural catastrophes alone belies such a claim.

No.  Legislation now approaching 3,000 and 5,00 pages in length, chock full of special favors, is a prescription of more close inbred corruption in the mud of Washington, D.C.  It leads to indistinguishable clones, currently called political parties.  While the “arranged” consanguineal union of the duopoly may provide them momentary relief, unfortunately what they consummate is harmful to the American future.  Indeed, if as the current President claims, a budget scalpel is preferred over a machete, we will agree.  We suggest that no finer or sharper a scalpel can be found than voting on expenditures, one at a time, independently, cleanly—rather than the mud wrestling embrace that has bred far too many wasteful federal boondoggles to count.  What was that term?… “Drain the Swamp”?  If so, then aye.

Comments are closed.