MAKING TIME TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE

Very strange is the contemporary treatment of the tea party.

Democrats – and much of the news media -- treat it as a villain of deepest depravity; many Republicans see it as an obstructionist power.

But in reality, is not the tea party a popular movement having little organization that seeks to encourage politicians to operate the government in accord with the Constitution? Supporters, who are not active in the movement, seem to view the tea party as such. The perceived goal is not pernicious but rather patriotic.

Critics of the tea party from all sides focus on congressional Representative and Senators who were elected to do something about unrestrained public spending and the debt that precipitates for trying to deliver on their campaign promises. In recent political maneuvering they hung tough in an effort to make progress on their goals. They were excoriated for ignoring the solidified voting of a Senate bloc and a spin-driven President, and for not joining the Republican establishment’s recognizing that reality.

Under the system, the constituents who in the 2012 elected voices in both houses heard their concerns raised in the Congress. What is wrong with that?

George Will in a recent column uses an article by Jonathan Rauch in National Affairs quarterly on James Madison’s design of the U.S. government. Wills argues that President Obama wants to change Madison’s plan by wielding legislative branch rubber stamps to his fiats, while the tea party defies the Founder’s design though intransigence.

A fair reading of tea party goals is this: enough government by the consent of the governed to permit people to live in freedom at a public cost  they can afford.

There’s nothing unreasonable about that.

But finding such balance in the country’s current condition involves a philosophical clash of politicians loath to confront legislated federal aid obligations that grow in cost without legislative restraint. Those obligations are called entitlements.

That term in itself explains the problem. A congressional search for reduced tax burdens caused by guaranteed claims absent rancor becomes neigh on impossible.

As the Seabees said in WW II, the difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer.

How much time do we have?

DO THE JOB!

So, realistically, is there a way to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling that constitutes compromise and no capitulation on the part of the Republican federal lawmakers?

Conservatives and liberal Republicans both seek an answer. So far, no proposal has moved President Obama and his Democrats, who seem an immovable phalanx in opposition. Except for a few demonstrating veterans trying to open war memorials and some tourists ignoring or removing blockading cones and portable barriers at national parks, the U.S. citizenry seems nearly bored.

When the computers behind food stamp electronic cards failed for a few hours to record limits, some savvy users denuded shelves in several Wal-Mart stores; but those opportunists were moved by greed not political anxiety.

Democrats, it seems, can hardly wait ‘til the $17 billion debt limit is breached with ensuing chaos haunting 2014 voters – such as food stamp users – so that Republicans join Whigs as historic curiosities.

And, of course, the problem of funding government for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 also requires resolution.

Had elected members of our federal governmental done their jobs, none of this would have happened. Government would be up and running and domestic and foreign investors in U.S. securities would be paying for it. Done their jobs? Well, they have not done that for a long time – even when government kept running – because that debt kept growing and growing. Jobs well done would not have permitted that, except in time of war and crisis.

Even though Oct. 17 may not mark Armageddon, it could be the starting line of a race into a dark national future.

From past history, one can assume that some temporary solution will be had in a rather short time after the deadline. Chances are, that won’t be a final solution, and it shall not be good for the country, its economy, its future.

Being optimistic, Election Day 2014 will arrive. That will be the time something should done.

But before then, the what of done has to be articulated and sold to the electorate. That’s a nationwide campaign.

Campaign? A campaign to turnover – completely – the Congress. All new members. Democrats where there are now Republicans in the House; Republicans where there are Democrats. Plus, one-third of the senators turned out by their opponents.

A Democratic House dominated by new members of both parties would be smart enough to know they were now in office to do the bidding of an aroused and demanding citizenry wanting actual representative government. Similarly, the Senate – having a third of its members awaiting perhaps a similar fate in 2016 and another third in 2020 – would consider a change in work habits mandatory.

Realistically, the election results needn’t turn over 100 percent of the House to get members doing their jobs; even losses by 25 percent of incumbents would be significant; the higher the percentage, the higher the chances of bringing sanity to Washington.

And what about President Obama under such circumstances?

The country would learn his true character.