If the country operated as a representative republic, with those elected committed to represent only the citizens within the boundaries of their election mandate, then it might be easy to anticipate that Congress would respond to the citizens. Unfortunately, that no longer describes the American political narrative.

Americans have been quite clear in their desire to balance the federal budget, not as the primary goal of their elected officials, but as an important goal, though less important than encouraging the creation of jobs in America.

Yet Congress continues to ignore the voters.

Earlier this year the President and the Speaker of the House failed to create a partial solution that would have saved $4 trillion dollars over the coming decade.

So Congress, with its responsibility over budgeting, created a “super” committee to address the issue, granting this group of 12 unprecedented powers to restore the federal budget to a basis that would be sustainable for the future.

The super committee failed even more abysmally than the President and Speaker failed. They produced absolutely nothing for their efforts…that is if you do not count blame and counter blame as productivity.

Voters have the right to understand just why the super committee failed. The most popular excuses posed by political pundits have been to suggest that the polarization between the two parties has created an atmosphere of political intolerance.

While this is certainly a valid observation of the contemporary political climate, it may not fully describe why the super committee lost its super powers.

The underlying problem may be that our representatives are representing their constituencies and those constituencies are not only voters in the home district.

The voters have, for their part, been absolutely contradictory in their message to congress and the president. Voters absolutely do not want Social Security touched, reduced, or changed at all. And similar majorities do not want changes made that would reduce the benefits of Medicare. Republicans have disagreed with voters here.

Likewise, a majority of voters, over 60 percent, would prefer to see the tax rates of the highest incomes raised to help trim the deficit. Again, Republicans would ignore the voters here and protect the highest incomes from tax rates equal to the middle class.

But voters also want to reduce the footprint of government and come much closer to a balanced budget sooner rather than later. On these goals Democrats stand in objection to the popular will.

Voters seem to, in that classic metaphor, want to “have their cake and eat it too.” Voters want all the social programs they have come to expect and appreciate, but do not want to pay more…unless they pay with someone else’s money.

If this disconnect between tax and benefit alone confronted Congress’ elected officials, making voter supported decisions would be difficult. But, when given the “other” constituencies that our elected officials serve, change, even decision-making, becomes nearly impossible.

Both parties survive from the mother’s milk of politics, money. And, to be honest, you and I do not give them the kind of money they need to campaign endlessly and demonize their opponents. So others reach out to those elected to serve the nation in order to influence their voting.

Large corporations and wealthy individuals feed the political machine, and not for free, but for value received. As long as their influence remains greater than that of the voters the budget problems will reflect their needs more than your needs.

Voters have only a singular power, the vote.

If you want lower taxes and fewer social services, vote more Republicans into congress. If you want higher taxes but continuing funding of social services, vote Democratic in November.

 

Jim Crawford is retired educator and political enthusiast living here in the Tri-State.