What’s all this I hear about things not getting done in Washington? It is a common fact that Wall Street rejoices when there is a split government. Business can be conducted without more rulemaking from the capitol that can affect business planning negatively.
The answer to ‘getting things done’ in Washington, if that is really what the collective ‘we’ want, is outsourcing. I propose to outsource the Federal Government and have the national decisions made by a government that can really ‘get things done’. This could be managed on a five-year basis through a national election to select the next government to run our country. Foreign governments would compete with each other and debate in the national media. Gone would be all the costs of running Washington. Gone would be the insiders and lobbyists that everyone seems to hate. Grandstanding by politicians looking to their next election would evaporate which would allow the media to concentrate on what they do best, crime reporting. No worries about the corporate heads that ‘really run out country’ either. The list of benefits is seemingly endless. Of course there is the issue of which foreign country would the citizens pick to be the first to straighten our mess out. Sweden with their huge tax burden and socialized everything? How about some star of South America such as Chile or Brazil? An old standard from the British Isles perhaps? My personal pick would be China for it’s no muss no fuss off with their heads attitude. Now there is a government that can really get things done…and in a hurry. No business or contracts law and western ethics to get in the way of progress. The environment be damned and full speed ahead. In China’s case, “Power to the people”, means cheap electricity for the masses. China, yep, that would be my pick. Any student of history will know that this has been done before. It was done in the country that developed the Holy Grail of Democracy: Athens. Athens was in a horrible mess (even 2500 years ago) and had been so for years. They hired an outsider to make all the new laws and rules and the Athenians would be required to live by the new laws for five years. Well, the wise Solon completed his task, provided the new rules for the government, and promptly left Athens and Greece. Where is a Solon when we need one?

There seems to be at least two separate issues going on here in critiquing the ways of Washington, but the author only focuses on one of them. It is accurate to challenge those who make sweeping statements about the corruption of politicians as a form of "a pox on both your houses." Such claims are easily to criticize as the writer so readily demonstrates.

However, there is another issue that is missed in this article. There is something wrong not just with the president, or congress, or the parties. Rather, there are systemic contradictions within our country that are preventing us from beginning to resolve some of the challenges we face. These include things like the endurance of the filibuster forcing supermajorities to pass anything, the inability of third- and fourth-parties to meaningfully participate in the democratic process by the absence of some form of proportional representation, and also the weakening of restrictions on lobbying and campaign finance. These are structural issues that transcend whoever is in particular positions of power, and these are part of a larger critique that needs to continue to be made.

By lumping all those who critique "Washington" as those against "the man", the author creates a false opponent who he easily dismisses. Through a more nuanced argument, such banalities can be reduced as we endeavor to reform our potentially beautiful but currently languishing democratic heritage.

I do not see myself as against Washington, but I would be for some real, long term solutions - not partisan moves on either part. Tax reform. A flat, loophole free tax rate at somewhere around 5-7 percent on on sales, income, corporations, estates, etc. Of course, with a minimum in place to keep people who are below poverty level or receiving small sums of money out of the equation.

I would be for cuts in spending as well - but why not things that are actually wasteful instead of trying to abolish useful things like the EPA, green car programs and funding for sidewalks so people can actually walk places and lower the number of heart attacks each year that send my health insurance through the roof? (And who is it that believes in no public healthcare and no EPA? Great idea... because we don't have enough people with cancer and no insurance now) Cut things that are NOT keeping our people safe and moving us forward. Its not like there is only one option for cuts.

As O'Reilly would say... I am all for eliminating "the $16 dollar muffins" and funds going toward other excesses in local and federal government (they exist in this administration and all of those that preceded it). The budget for them should be as tight as it is for the citizens they are representing... and I know if I was eating a 16 dollar muffin that would be my meal for the day. But that goes for Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Independents Government officials.

Ironically, many of whom are currently pushing for teachers and other unionized employees to loose their benefits and retirement have one of the sweetest benefits packages I have ever seen. Lets reform some of those... they don't need the $200,000 a year after retiring - remember what they say a teacher can live on?

I am registered as an independent and voted for Obama, and I am still happy about my choice, but I do think that the whole system needs reform - and I think that the same cry is coming from both sides. Its not like I want to pay more taxes without spending reform. It is all our money. Less spending is good, eliminating or reforming programs that aren't working is good. More oversight to keep things like Solyndra and Haliburton tax dollar debacles from happening are good.

I think Herman Cain's policy is interesting... I think Ron Paul's foreign policy and drug policies may be closer to target, I liked Obamas ORIGINAL healthcare policy pre-compromise and I think I would still prefer Ralph Nader's policy to all of the above (where did he go?) My point being, I want someone who protects the middle class and has the welfare of the American people at heart who is willing to make real. long term changes, cut budgets, reform taxes, and still preserve our future. Is that too much to ask for?

So why are people writing off Washington? I think its just because the partisan nature of things keeps people from taking the best of both worlds... and those of us in the middle don't know how to have our voices heard.

There is absolutely no reason to cut spending in an economic downturn of this magnitude. The amount of stimulus spending proposed by Democrats isn't nearly large enough to help the economy. While I would choose their proposal over that of the Republicans, neither will significantly help the economy. While the media may not make this clear, there actually is a consensus among the vast majority of economists that spending cuts are a bad idea and the deficit is NOT an immediate concern. If anything, short term spending cuts will just hurt long term tax revenue.

And, unfortunately, the system is broken. Not because politicians can't agree, but because the way our Constitution and government are structured inevitably results in the prioritization of corporate interests over those of most of the electorate. The Founding Fathers made it too difficult to amend the Constitution, and - more importantly - they didn't foresee mass media's ability to reliably influence public opinion. Most Americans aren't willing to admit this, but our Constitution is fundamentally flawed.

Most people don't want to hear this (the last century of propaganda has been effective), but the root problem is capitalism. Most people think socialism is either industries being state-controlled (it's not) or communism (it's not). It's just workers owning the means of production. People can still buy or sell whatever they want. If you don't like the fact that ~80% of the nation's wealth is concentrated in the top 20%, you're going to have to address the root cause. There are other ways to promote growth that don't result in investors permanently siphoning away wealth created by corporate labor. Look at organisations like the NIH or NSF as an example of another way businesses/researchers might raise funding.