Proposed resolution …

In these pages, I have already divulged one of my guilty pleasures: Tik Tok. Well, here is another one of the time sinks that I have fallen into in retirement: watching the House of Representatives on C-SPAN. Ever since the 15-rounds of voting that it took to elect Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, I have found myself devoting hours at a time to watching this very dysfunctional branch of Congress perform it’s political theater before a nationwide audience. It’s remarkable! When Congress is in session, C-SPAN provides unadulterated gavel to gavel coverage of what is going on in the House and Senate. Like any other long-established society or organization with hundreds of years of tradition, engaging the action is like stepping into a world with it’s own culture, language and etiquette. It can be disorienting, but it’s quickly apparent that a myriad rules provide the music for an exquisite parliamentary dance where “distinguished colleagues” spar and debate every policy and operational aspect of an incomprehensibly large bureaucracy. The players are smart, verbal people who exchange poisoned barbs with the politesse of a southern granny. I could go on and bloviate about all the things I find interesting about C-SPAN’s coverage, but I want to move on to a proposal that has its source in listening to the House members debate amendments to the Energy appropriations bill (i.e., a hot mess that has no chance in Hades of becoming law).

One of the major issues that divides representatives “across the aisle,” is the GOP perceived imperative to reduce spending. Each of the appropriation bills coming out of committee will reflect the Republican obsession with ratcheting expenditures back to the levels of previous years. Predictably, the Democrats push back on most of the proposed reductions that have no chance of being approved in the Senate, nor being signed into law by the President. If the Dems offer suggestions for reductions, they typically run afoul of Republican priorities (e.g., more money to build new nuclear weapons) and fall on deaf ears. It’s said that none of the appropriation bills will succeed if they do not reflect bi-partisan compromises. So, here’s a suggestion:

• Force deductions: if spending cuts will be required to fund the government then each party should get to specify where the cuts are made. The Democrats could select a reduction in the amount going to develop missiles to replace the Minutemans currently in the siloes. This is anathema to the Republicans, but they would get to place a similarly priced cut back to the development of green energy sources on the table. No one will like it but at least a mutually disagreeable reduction target could be achieved. Let’s face it, in a budget the size of the US government, there are plenty of savings to be found. The problem is that no one can agree on where and what to trim. Every legislator is caught between “bringing home the bacon” and doing what’s best for the country. Goring everyone else’s goat and saving all your own will not work. Everyone has to participate. Perhaps every legislative delegation should be required to come up with a proportionally appropriate reduction that impacts their constituents. This would require Congress to explain to the American people why these deductions, why deficit spending and why the national debt are such big problems. Instead of allowing the public to continue spectating, while their representative gladiators battle it out, everyone would need to take up a sword and fight a common enemy … the deficit monster that threatens to eat our lunch and a whole lot more.