Here's what I think is going on around the country:
People are pissed.
OK, maybe "pissed" and "rage" are too strong of words, but I think that people are tired of the same old Washington bullshit. It goes like this:
One side elects their guys and girls so they can game the system and get a disproportionate share of the government largess. The other side schemes to get back in power so their peeps can return to the government trough. Meanwhile, we all set out land mines for the other party so as to make them look bad and keep them down or keep us up, whichever works.
What's good for the country as a whole comes second to what's good for us as individuals. That's the old Washington. A big club where everyone takes turn sucking on the power and money teat.
In the passed, I've been super critical of Americans for talking out of both sides of their mouths on this deal. The average citizen is all for fairness and civility -- until it costs them money or gets them cut out of some appropriations bill. Then we fall all over ourselves to jam our fat fingers into the pie.
Iowa is no different than any other state. Even on the local level. Perfect example -- the Iowa Caucuses. My opinion is it would be more fair if other states got to go first now and then. It also would encourage more people to participate if we had a primary, rather than a caucus, which is a throwback to the 1800s.
The only reason we don't scrap the caucus is that it would mean that we're no longer first in the nation. Ask anyone. We made a deal with New Hampshire to be 1 and 2 so long as we don't turn into a primary, which would make New Hampshire second in the nation in primaries, and that would piss them off. So we stick with the caucus that virtually nobody likes (especially on the Democratic side which is way more goofy than the Republican way of doing it).
Why? We Iowans are addicted to the attention and cash that being first brings our state, and that supersedes all other concerns for fairness to other states and inclusiveness in the process. It's the same reason people who want fairness in government press their Congresspersons to include big, fat cash grants called "ear marks" into totally unrelated bills. Ram those through, get the check, then complain about government spending.
So I'm cautiously optimistic that this time, we mean it. This time we're willing to elect people who will shake things up and change the bullshit system of mutual back scratching and the kind of bickering and fighting that reminds us all of siblings slapping each other in the back seat and makes us want to stop this car and come back there.
I've seen Republicans and Democrats work together for the common good. I know it can happen. So my proposal is this:
1. Send them to Washington, and if they don't change the process for the better, fire them and send someone new. Every election, if the system is still broken, FIRE whoever is up for re-election -- regardless of party -- and send someone new in there. I guarantee it will only take one election cycle for the rest of Washington to get the message and change their conduct.
2. Stop treating the political system like a giant hot dog-eating contest where you see how much you can gobble down when it's your turn. Another example: When Congress approved the anti-terrorism cash, we all lined up at the trough.
Everyone knew the population centers, ports, etc. should get most of that cash. That's common sense. But it didn't stop us from lining up like hogs for our "fair share." So huge terrorist targets like Wyoming got millions of anti-terrorism dollars that would have been better spent in New York, Chicago, LA, at the ports, etc. And politicians made sure every state got a piece of the action on that deal. You keep your constituents happy by sending them checks.
3. End the system that gives out committee and sub-committee chairmanships based on seniority. That's a big one. Here in Iowa, we have two senators (Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Tom Harkin) who have been in the senate Congress since roughly the Taft Administration. By now they are very senior members of the Senate, so no matter who controls Congress, they get plumb committee chairmanships, like the Ag Committee, where they ensure that Iowa gets Big Cash in the Farm Bill.
Every time they stand for re-election, the argument in both the primary and the general election is, if you toss these guys, Iowa loses its place first in line at the appropriations trough. If the chairmanships were assigned at random, then every member of Congress would have to stand for re-election based on what they did for America, rather than how much money they sent back home.
But all this is probably way too idealistic. We want change, but we still want our cash, I suspect. But I see pasty white Iowa causing for a black man who talks about changing everything as a good sign. The message of "stay the course" has become suicide. We'll see how it goes. No matter who gets elected in 2008, keep your eyes on 2009 to see if the gravy train and the Business As Usual even slows down. And if it doesn't, toss them in 2102.
Comments