We find ourselves at a point in our history where special interests have all but devoured our government, and Lincoln’s words “of the people, for the people and by the people” is beginning to sound hollow.
Washington is no longer a place where reasonable men argue about serious matters that many times in the past resulted in compromise.
Today’s Senate and House of Representatives are filled not with honest men representing the interests of the constituency, but only the special interests that promise to get them re-elected.
The arguments are not about compromise and finding a way forward, but rather just more empty promises, carefully skirting real issues affecting the poor and the middle class.
The top presidential hopefuls leave much to be desired. On the liberal side is Mrs. Hillary Clinton, and setting aside the red herring of e-mails which the Justice Department describes as not criminal but procedural and conservatives describe as Watergate, Mrs. Clinton has not fully satisfied her constituency with what appears to be duplicity regarding her opposition to the Alaskan offshore oil project while being hesitant to take a stand in opposition to the graver issue, the Keystone XL pipeline, which could destroy the largest freshwater aquifer in North America and put at risk freshwater needed for agriculture and cattle in eight states. Apparently, she opposes the president over the Alaskan offshore oil with no problem, but she says she must wait until a decision is reached by this same president. Her positions are so contradictory, and some, unfortunately, may be the influence of campaign supporters.
On the conservative side, things that they hoped would be murkier have been all too clear with no support for the poor and middle class, but promises to special interests of maintaining the status quo, if not improving it.
The showboat in all this melodrama is the king of deals, Mr. Donald Trump, who constantly reminds everyone (especially reporters) that he is very rich and not to ask any embarrassing questions that require answers dealing in substance…
Mr. Trump has tapped into the anger and frustration of the American people (especially Republicans, who have lost in the last two presidential elections) over the inability of Congress in forming any degree of compromise with this president, resulting in a frozen legislature and reduced the effectiveness of this president.
Mr. Trump has promised that if elected, he will send back 11 million illegals, but immediately bring back the “good” ones. Gee! What could go wrong there?
The reality is that in order to prevent “anchor babies” from becoming American citizens, Mr. Trump would have to suspend the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, or change by the rigorous amendment process. Neither one promises to be successful.
Mr. Trump also has a problem with promising support of “equal pay for equal work” for women. Here he equivocates by putting into such discussions, parity, competitiveness of positions touching on fair pay scales elsewhere, maybe China, Mr. Trump?
Whether Mr. Trump can maintain his entertaining but reckless style and his amazing lead over the Republican herd remains to be seen. Being sketchy on details may work in the early days of the campaign, but may not sustain him should he survive to the actual primary votes. While entertaining, his banter with the press and his “speeches” may cause him to lose some of his charm and sparkle when the discussions grow more serious and he is forced to give details on his solutions.
We are now down (or up) to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who some fear because his socialistic views of government may bring us more programs like Social Security and Medicare for everyone. I seriously doubt that his strong support of Social Security, Medicare, the rebuilding of the infrastructure of America and the rejection of Middle East involvement would garner the kinds of funds needed to make him a viable candidate for president. Special interests will not support such programs.
Richard Nielsen, Royal Palm Beach