RLS BAD FOR AMERICA

It is sad to watch how our government goes about solving problems and dealing with national concerns.  When legislators vote strictly along party lines and with the idea of making sure the other party does not achieve success or recognition, we have the present sad situation.  I call it the RLS condition.

Before I explain that last sentence, I need you to play a little game with me.  Imagine that you are Mr. or Mrs. Jones and with your spouse, you have to find a solution to an urgent family problem.  Let us suppose it is a financial problem.  You have maxed out your credit cards, you are behind in your mortgage payments, the car needs new tires, one of the kids need braces, school taxes have gone up again, or some other pressing financial matter.  Regular bills keep coming in while income remains the same.  The two of you need to sit down at the kitchen table and work out a plan of attack – and do it today.

There are really only three options: find additional income, reduce spending, or do both.

That’s about it.  You could get additional money in the short term by borrowing from family, friends, or a lending agency.  One or both of you could look for additional employment, a part time job for instance, but that will only produce income down the road.  Still, it’s an option to consider.  You must address the spending patterns that got you into this mess.  Dad may have to give up golf and mom forego her weekly visit to the hair salon.  Who knows what you will decide.  That is where the kitchen-table negotiations come into play.

Now suppose that neither of you is willing to discuss any solution that requires you to give up anything.  Further, you reject any proposal that does not require sacrifice by your spouse. In other words, if your spouse likes it, you are going to be against it.  Sounds stupid, doesn’t it.

We have something like that going on in Washington as our elected officials grapple with how to deal with the nation’s mounting debt – and it has been the SOP (standard operating procedure) in Washington for far too long, regardless of which party is in power in congress or the White House.

It is the attitude that says, “I want to help solve this problem so long as the solution does not cost my party any political capital.  Further it must make the other party look bad.”  In other words, if the other party is for it, I am going to be against it.

I call this the Rush Limbaugh Syndrome, RLS for short.  Rush Limbaugh candidly admitted after President Obama’s election that he wanted to see this president fail.  Rush Limbaugh is not a legislator.  He is a political pundit.  As such, his responsibility is to say or do whatever it takes to generate good ratings.  Ratings are the coin of the realm for political pundits.  He has followers who share his desire to see President Obama fail and he took a position that honestly reflected those viewers’ feeling.

I admire honesty, but Rush Limbaugh is not an elected official.  He does not vote on legislation.  He does not have the responsibility for solving any of the nation’s problems.  His narrow position on political matters is not what most of us want in our representatives or senators.  You cannot honestly represent the folks back home if you frame your approach to every piece of legislation with the question: “Will this help make the president fail?”  Just as dishonest is the question: “How does the party leadership want me to vote?”

We have too many politicians in Washington whose priorities are: the party, then my reelection, then the nation.

I gave Rush Limbaugh credit for being honest.  I wish I could do the same for most of our legislators.