Shoes, Toothbrushes, Fire and That Guy with the Turban Next Door

I don't get into politics too often on here, that's not to say that I'm not opinionated on the subject... quite the contrary. I guess it's because I rarely feel like trying to convince others to change their beliefs. My experience is that folks are pretty hard headed and have to be in a certain state of mind in order to be persuadable. Never the less, I will state some facts as I understand them and you can decide for yourself whether or not these facts make you angry and in what constructive way you will put that anger to use. When W. entered office our national debt limit was set by congress at 6 trillion $. We were nowhere close to the limit but thats where it was set. Today (for the 3rd time since W entered office) congress had no choice but to raise that debt limit. It's now up to 9 trillion $. If congress did not pass the resolution then the U.S. would have no choice but to forfeit on the loans from foreign governments. This policy of spending $ that we don't have today with the idea that we can pay it off sometime in the distant future is no different than an individual who charges everything they're buying today on their Visa card then handing the accumulated unpaid debt over to their children. The effects of the debt that the U.S. is racking up right now will not be felt by those enjoying this simulated winfall. It will be felt by our children and our grandchildren... painfully so. Eight years ago this nation had a fiscal policy where it spent less $ than it was taking in from taxes. We were actually able to make payments to our accumulated national debt. In other words, it was slowly getting smaller after having climbed steadily from the Reagan and Bush 'trickle down' or 'voodoo' economic policies in the '80's. "But Brico" you say "W doesn't decide our spending policy's. That's congress." This is true. Congress is to blame for its own out of control spending. But W is responsible for not vetoing bills that come to his desk that have undo pork spending line items in them. W has not vetoed a single bill in his two terms. He passively okay's every $ spent. That's not leadership. "Well, what's your suggestion then mr. 'i-got-all-the-answers'?" Okay, I do happen to have some ideas. They're not new ones. But they are unpopular ones... with those in power. 1- Permenantly reinstate the line item veto option for the president. This allows most good bills to pass through the senate yet allows the president to cut out the b.s. pork spending that scrupulous congressmen (and women) stick in an otherwise good bill while still passing the bill into law. 2- Severe reform of the lobbying laws. The way lobbyists and congress are able to interact now is essentially a bribe system. There's no way to say it any simpler than that. Votes are for sale to the highest bidder in DC. 3- Term limits for both houses!!! When Newt Gingrich became majority leader some 14? years ago the 'Plan for America' that he spearheaded had every point passed due to a republican led congress... with the exception of term limits. No congressman (or woman) is going to vote themself out of power which is exactly what they would be doing by passing such a bill. But none of these 3 points will ever get passed unless we as a voting community start voting the slackers out of office. Sadly, I don't see that happening. We give our votes to the best soundbites, and the sincerest smiles. We should be giving our votes based on the 'yea' and 'nay' counts on the bills they voted on. But that's too complicated. Who has the time to research all the particulars of all the bills that went before our senator or representative over the last 4 years and how s/he voted? Nobody has the time and fewer still have the inclination. So, nothing will change. BUT HERE'S THE REAL PROBLEM... We as a species have certain instincts. We are tribal in nature. Throughout history mankind has seen its tribes, its small gatherings that make up a community, grow only to a certain size then split apart. It is instinctual for us to be in a community that is governed by a leader that knows its individuals personally. Furthermore, it is instinctual for us to only be in a formed group where each member knows each and every other member personally. There is a certain genentic makeup within us that makes us withdrawn and uneasy when we live in a 'tribe' with others that we do not know personally. It makes us even more uncomfortable when those individuals that we do not know that reside amongst us, that share our resources (in caveman times this would be water, shelter, fire, hunting grounds) are different than us in background, appearance, religion, and language. But that is not our society today. We do not live in a tribe where we work beside and interact with our alpha male every day. We are not members of a community where everyone shares the same language, the same background, the same ancestors, the same philosphy and god. The person living next door to us is often a stranger. This instinct of ours to interact with only those known to us and those similar to us causes us to create sub cultures, organizations, clubs. But then our loyalties, attentions and dedictions turn toward these mini groups rather than the greater society. Yet the greater society (aka country) is where our concerns and attentions should be. We lose interest in, we even lose a certain ability to remain concerned with, a government entity that we don't recognize on a personal level. And it is when this apathy arises from a society's citizens (or tribe's members) that a government becomes corrupt. A small quaint town of a few thousand members (like Minden, Nebraska where I spent alot of time in my youth) functions well. There is little crime because one is more prone to be concerned for their behavior and consequences of their actions when they are surrounded by those they know, as opposed to walking around the streets of New Yourk city in virtual anonymity. But when that quaint town becomes a populace of 50,000 people things change. Now that we are no longer nomads we cant simply pick up half a city and move it to its own location and peacefully interact as one managably sized tribe again. Instead we try to interact within a context that is somehow unatural to us. Is it possible to overcome these deeply engrained instincts of ours? To be able to coexist in a massive tribe of 500,000 + individuals? I believe so, but not without effort, not without understanding of this concept by all members of that society. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. I don't see 500,000 + people redirecting their energy and dedication and concern back to a foreign entity that somehow fails to satisfy some basic instinct of ours. Instead we will continue on our way of sub dividing ourselves up into gated communities and retirement communities and being wary of that stranger across the street who celebrates a different holiday us. your thoughts?