Late Friday, the feared consequence of a lowered debt rating came about as Standard & Poor's declared the U.S. government no longer risk-free, citing “the gulf between the political parties” for causing erosion of confidence in its functioning.
Plainfield has long suffered on the micro level from intractability among its elected representatives. To see such behavior at the highest levels of government is horrifying to a nation already suffering severe economic jitters. But a post from The Economist reminds us that this course was set years ago.
In various translations, Hosea 8:7 says if there is any yield, "foreigners" or "strangers" will consume it. If we have any lunch left to eat, there are world powers out there putting on their bibs.
Can Plainfield learn anything about responsible governance from this situation? Or will political game-playing outweigh stewardship and common sense as important local elections loom? It remains to be seen.
--Bernice
I'm disgusted with both the Republicans and Democrats for their behavour. Both sides pander to specific groups -- and BOTH pander to big money (what pays for elections). I get tired of the constant blaming. They spend so much time blaming, making enemies, finding fault -- that no one works on finding solutions in the middle-ground.
ReplyDeleteIt's really childish. They want to take credit, cast blame -- instead of working a as a team and our entire government getting credit for good governance. Working as a team doesn't mean that you don't fight, argue, have different viewpoints -- that's healthy and normal. I don't see any teamwork at any level of government -- so the bare minimum gets done.
I think we need major political reform in this country. Term limits, limited private funding of campaigns. Every special interest group has a right (and should) lobby for their group's interests -- but leadership is about making hard choices, compromise. You realistically can't satisfy every special interests demands.
In short -- our politicians need to do what's best for the majority and for the country.
What's going on now is certainly not what's best for the country.
Olive Lynch
Term limits would be the best thing for our government...the expertise and knowledge our daft representatives often speak of as a reason to NOT have term limits usually involves lining their own pockets...I think we can do without this expertise and knowledge for quite some time. On a micro level...NJ is the poster child for term limits being needed. To see people, including our 3rd most powerful legislator, talk about making hard choices and doing whats right brings a new meaning to slap stick..and term limits would most certainly solve our problem of Mayor Sharon without having to wake up the blind party lever pullers.
ReplyDeleteTo 5:56pm - I understand your point, but I am so opposed to term limits and here is why. We have shoved off our responsibilities about everything.
ReplyDeleteKids can't sled on public golf courses, because if they get hurt, it is the city's fault.
There are no accidents anymore - everyone else is responsible if I trip on a paper.
Heck, there was a case brought against the LIRR because someone wanted to kill themselves, and alleged that because the brakes of the train did not work properly, they were not successful. (FYI - the person actually won the first case, but it was thrown out of court on appeal).
My point is that we have term limits. It is called voting. If the American people choose not to do that, well, we get what we have now. If we impose term limits, yet again, we we hand over our responsiblity to something else.