Government was always meant to be divided merely because opposing views fighting for ideals resulted in better policies with more thought and intention put into them. This is why the Obama conglomerate had managed to bring the nation to its knees when the Democrat-ran House and Senate catered to our President’s every demand like Virgil to Ted DiBiase.
But now, the winds of change have blown and the Republicans have retaken the House and it is vital that they did. During the last midterm election, the American people spoke when they elected over sixty new Republican Representatives to the House, costing Nancy Pelosi her job. The people’s party campaigned on the exact same platform Obama did; change.
Change we could have, but let’s not.
Yes, we had lots of change the last two years: big business bailout, cash for clunkers, and worsening relations with North Korea and Iran (despite Bill Clinton’s gracious diplomatic attempt). What kind of true change can we expect from the new GOP House? In my opinion, very little.
The reason being is that the House is the fundamental beginning for all laws, bills, and policies. Those documents then go through the Senate and then to the President for approval. Obama proclaimed during midterm elections that the Republicans, “were going to have to ride in the backseat,” hinting that he was unwilling to work with the GOP. This division by party alone will hinder any attempt at change.
However, we can expect quite a few positive things to come out of this armistice. First of all, the EPA sustainability agenda will probably cease to be shoved down our throats. This can mean terrible things for the government discount on the newly released automotive punch line, the Chevy Volt. This would also mean the end of the stupid notion of taxing companies for waste through production of goods. Secondly, all the secret insertions and amendments into healthcare reform will hopefully stop. Hell, hopefully the entire thing will be repealed altogether. Thirdly, the GOP will start making gains in real issues we have to deal with for the incoming election.
The 2008 election was about fixing the economy. We still have yet to do that so the agenda remains the same. It was during the time between the healthcare debate and the midterm election when a new issue came to public knowledge: incumbents.
Thanks to Tea Party efforts, many new Congressmen are fresh new faces to the DC area. Actually the theme of the midterm elections was, “out with the old and in with the new.” How will these new, young statesmen deal with the issue of incumbents? Perhaps for the first time in years, we will get to raise the issue of pension and governmental pay reform.
Think about all the perks of being a Congressman: lifetime pension, benefits, and royalties from the state to them and their families. One merely needs to be elected to one term for all this good stuff. Who is paying for this?
I propose something a bit more modest. How about a stipend upon the end of a congressman’s term so he or she can go out and start a business or buy a house like they do for military personnel? No more pension plans, no more hidden siphons in the treasury. Or how about term limits? A friend of mine once said, “If two is good enough for the president, then two should be good enough for the rest of them.”
This debate might just go down within the next year or two. After all, one of the changes that the people demanded was a method to deal with the incumbents. Will the new statesmen have the courage to step up to their campaign promises, commit an incredible act of self sacrifice, and dish out the idea of legislative reform?