Isn't the United States too big, and its governing too far away from its Citizens?

 A reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson.  Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN (  http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers   ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video.

The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule.  If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness.  Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government.  The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade.  Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth.  It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln, reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined that the southern states could not secede and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of multiple aligned republics being the future political unit disappeared.  The formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit set the example.

No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and the one by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.

How does this lead to a loss of control of our government?

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected one Representative for every 30,000 people.  But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435.  Now, there is one Representative for every 720,000 people.  If this ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all. On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.

Until 1914 the Legislature of each state selected and voted on the Senators to serve in the Washington, D. C. national Senate. Subsequently, our "elected" Senators are selected by direct voting, which no longer is guaranteed to reflect the political stance of their subject state, but by their ability to be attractive to the voters, which is directly affected by the amount of money they can negotiate for from very rich and opinionated "donors."  Those are who your Senators see as deserving of allegiance, not the voters' political and personal wants and desires., regardless of what the political ads or speeches say!

 The republican view of governmental responsiveness to citizens as well as to the rule of law has been lost.

Is it any surprise that our "elected" officials and bureaucrats that have never met more voters than they have bureaucrats do not have any instinct... any conscience...

to suggest that they owe any "allegiance," "care," or "oath of office" obligation to those citizens in the rest of the country?  Is it any surprise that many of them see "us" as the enemy?

Distance does NOT make the heart or the allegiance grow fonder, and almost inevitably leads to disrespect and betrayal!

We shoot ourselves by giving up on the study and discussion of History

 When was the last time that you felt that your government was being responsive to you, your values, your needs?  When was the last time that you felt that the government was there, in the words of the old half-joke, to help you?  When was the last time that you trusted the government to do the right thing?

If you are like most of the people I know, on all sides of the political spectrum, the answer is, "never!"

For a long time I have searched for a true answer for why this seems to be true.  Some have blamed ideology.  Others point to the need for term limits.  But these answers seem hollow and superficial.  Would changing those things change our attitude about today's United States of America Federal Government?  I suspect not.  So, my search has been ongoing, fitfully, for some time, since it seems that if one cannot define and truly identify the source of and reason for a problem, there is no hope at all for "fixing" it...assuming that it can be fixed.  And suddenly a whole new area of study and possible answer to my ongoing questions came to my attention.

In November of 2013, one Professor Donald Livingston, Professor Emeritus at Emory University, gave a speech at the University of Virginia on Republicanism (the government form, not the political ideology), David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.  That speech was broadcast on C-SPAN.  Now, most of us have had ideas come to us suddenly and the proverbial light bulb goes off in your brain.  But...this speech had flashbulbs of incredible brilliance going off continually for an hour of rapt listening...and nodding ascent.  Never before had I even considered the effect of our form of government on the current status of the country.

I had been taught that our government was not a pure democracy but a Republic.  But the difference between a pure democracy and a republic was never, at least in my case, a matter of intense or critical study.  Nor was there ever a study of the advantages and limitations of a republican form of government.

What an error in our educational content.  But, perfectly understandable.  Why?  To answer that question completely requires the reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson.  Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN (  http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers   ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video.  But I will share the substance of what stuck with me from watching and listening to Professor Livingston...and I am confident that substance will get your attention and initiate thought and debate.

The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule.  If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness.  Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government.  The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade.  Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth.  It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined, by force, that the southern states could not secede, and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of the various republics being the political unit, to one where people became the political unit and control was to be centralized.  The French Revolution resulted in the formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit.

No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and then by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.

All of this is interesting on its own, but you might ask how this translates to the perception that we have lost control of our government...and it is a good question.

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected one Representative for every 30,000 people.  But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435.  The result is that today there is one Representative for every 720,000 people.  If this ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all. On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.  And the Supreme Court now is the decider of what the Constitution says.  This means that we have lost the republican view of governmental responsiveness as well as the rule of law.

Additionally, consider that the number of votes necessary to enact laws and authorize spending, all concentrated in Washington, D.C., is 268, and if you limit that to a quorum minimum, the number drops to 135.  This level of representation has resulted in a national debt of over 17 Trillion Dollars, and total unfunded liabilities variously estimated to be anywhere from $220 Trillion to $238 Trillion.  This is the burdon that our government has placed on our descendants.  To give you some prospective, in 2011 the Gross Domestic Product of all of the countries in the entire world amounted to $72 Trillion.

Now you start to see the source for the assertion that we no longer control our government.

David Hume wrote on how to solve the problem of size and save the responsiveness of government in a large republic.  Both he and Jefferson realized the greatest danger to the existence of a republic was corruption; the danger of a group of representatives to make decisions for their own purposes and aims. The answer was to divide America into 100 republics, not states, and move the House of Representatives out of Washington to each republic capitol, with each republic having 100 Representatives ( getting us back close to one representative for every 30,000 citizens).  The Senate would pass a bill, and then it would send that bill to each Republic for ratification.

This greatly reduces the likelihood of corruption, as the cost and logistics of lobbying 10,000 Representatives in 100 different locations would be at best, problematic and at worst, impossible.  There would also be the benefit of Representatives living and being constantly available to their constituents countering with "their" wishes at home, rather than reaching out electronically to "representatives" enjoying their comforting isolation and support from the "deep state" in our nation's Capitol.

With such a process, the Senate would be less inclined to introduce bills with "earmarks" and "pork" projects that were clearly not beneficial to all, as there would be greatly reduced chance of passage by the House of Representatives.  And those bills which have merit, but not on the gigantic scale of the Commonwealth, could and would be adopted by those republics individually as they saw the smaller scale need.

Of course, the best operation of the republican form of governance is still the small republic.  The analogy presented by Professor Livingston seemed most apt, even if not absolutely correct from a medical viewpoint: when a cell grows beyond a certain size, it divides...when it does not it is a cancer.

This is why our government no longer serves us; why it may still be "of the people", and "for the people", but is no longer "by the people."  Now I can begin to study and ponder on what the solution may be, including those as presented by the application of David Hume's "Large republic" concept.  But is seems clear that the status quo has nothing to offer.

Politicians retire Rich; should that be?

A member of the House of Representatives, and a United States Senator each receives a salary of One Hundred Seventy-four Thousand ($174,000) Dollars a year.  Each gets allowances for staffing their offices, Office space and travel allowances.  And, of course, each gets status as well as the power to influence the actions of our Federal Government, including impacting our taxes as well as our individual freedoms.  Their performance is important to every citizen.

Some members of both houses have retired in the past couple of years,and more will retire at the end of this year.  A review of how long they served in public orffice, and their net worth on retirement seemed in order.

Senator "A" 18 years service,                net worth:   $2,794,024
Senator "B"  23 years service,               net worth:   $1,695,514
Senator "C" 12 years service,                net worth:   $2,668,017
Representative "1"  22 years service,    net worth:   $2,781,015
Representative "2"  30 years service,    net worth:  $24,290,511
Representative "3"    8 years service,    net worth:    $5,727,032
Representative "4"  35 years service,    net worth:    $1,348,011
Representative "5"  25 years service,    net worth:    $2,464,049

Whether these accumulations of wealth are legal or not is not my point.  Does anyone believe that these increases in net worth can happen of the Congressmen and women involved were spending their time looking after ever constituent equally?

Does anyone wonder why over the years none of these "accumulations" have come under Media scrutiny?

Is there any question about whether or not any of the accumulations (and expenditures) have not seen detailed audits and investigation by ANY legal entity or Inspector General(s)?

I cannot be the first to wonder about the ethics and legality of this sort of activity on the part of those who we euphemistically call "Public Servants.

Any ideas?

Is Government becoming our "God" substitute?

Even a cursory scan of History reveals a significant involvement presence of "God" in governing.  And the records show that it wasn't a particularly "hard" sell;  a vast majority of human beings all over the planet have an instinct to look to a "higher power", while any and all of those who wished to govern found it both effective and useful to claim direction from an unassailable higher being that could be challenged at the human level.  Even today, we see religion playing a huge role around the world in establishing a "right to rule."

Countries and Rulers who attempted to eliminate any reliance on authority from a higher power have been seen to have a limited shelf life.  The exist as long as military force supports the head of State, but collapses when that support disappears, usually accompanied by a lot of ill will.

A common view is that this is because of two elements: 1) as mentioned above, it is nice for a ruler to be able to play "good cop" to God as the "bad cop" when ruling...it allows the human to take credit and kudos for the good things, and blame the bad things on an unassailable and unreachable entity with unlimited power and authority; and 2) many people truly believe in an "Almighty God" and do not need significant convincing to accept the concept.

The Founding Fathers clearly saw that any successful governing entity required the granting of authority of a Higher Power, stipulating that the right to govern was given man by God, and was inalienable.  They depended on the concept that by placing governing power in the hands of many, there would be less chance of any one individual claiming, acquiring and exercising his or her personal views by representing them as God's will.  All of those who were influential recognized the challenge.  Some were expecting success...probably the majority.  Others, like Jefferson, thought that the attempt had promise but a limited life span; as he said, "ultimately government becomes the enemy of individual freedom."  And they all recognized that the time could very well come when the government they founded would cease to be responsive to God and the People, thus requiring still another revolution.

When there is a general acceptance that governance is ultimately responsible to "God" there is a tendency to grumble when personal lives don't go very well...but most of the time (with exceptions, like the French Revolution) that is where it stops.  For more to occur, the "stand-ins" for God have to be supremely stupid...and that does occur.   When there is no concept of authority from God, it is much easier for those who object to governmental decisions to brand them as unacceptable and to claim just as much right to rule as does the person in charge.  Thus...governmental chaos can occur, followed by a period of optimism to be followed once again by chaos...and so forth.

America has evolved into a state of confusion in this regard.  We still have "In God we Trust" on our money.  A majority, as slim as it might be today, still sees us as a Judaeo-Christian country that looks to the moral elements of the ten commandments as imperatives.  At the same time, our Supreme Court has seen the Constitution's ban on "establishing" an official religion, a ban designed to allow each person the right to worship God in his or her own way, as a direction to remove God from public places.

Similarly, the public and the courts have eroded the once automatic alignment of law and morals as delineated in the Ten Commandments, making legal all manner of activities that were once seen as unacceptable.  Increased right to litigation has led to a remarkable lowering of standards considered previously as required civil behavior, the elimination of which once would have effectively brought about the shunning of the miscreant by all in a community.  Now they appear to be on the verge of being the majority.  Our leaders seem to delight in talking about God but ignoring God when governing.

Government, and human beings, make poor governors; both best succeed when they see themselves as tools, rather than the ultimate authority.  At the very least, an elected leader needs to always remember that he serves all of the people...NOT as a God or an authority, but as a representative and servant.  Politicians in our Republic have been quick to announce that they are elected because of their judgement and knowledge and ability to deal with many factors; they point to their background and relevant experiences as why they will decide for the people what the best decisions should be.  I find this presumptuous and repugnant; I fail to understand why so many citizens just accept this balderdash as authoritative.

But no longer do our leaders look to the people for guidance as to what the people want.  And they eliminate any concept of praying for guidance from any higher power either.  They have determined to be an authority of and for themselves.  The attempt to create a government for the people, by the people and of the people (with a presumption that all were accountable to "God") has become a government for the government and the office holders, by the government and the office holders, and of the government and its office holders.

It is hard to see how this will ever turn out well for what once was the United States of America.

Iran Nuclear "Agreement": final comment

Our Congress is going to repeat the their abdication of their oath's of office.  Just as they passed the Healthcare Bill without reading it, they now are going to allow an agreement that was fashioned in a manner designed to give Iran an express lane to both nuclear weapons AND ICBMs while also releasing Billions of Dollars to help Iran fund terrorism around the world.

The Administration continues to claim how tough this agreement is.  Really?  Even they acknowledge that they have not read ANY print, much less fine print, of the side agreements that the IAEA and Iran have signed and which are incorporated by reference into the multi-party agreement now being considered by Congress.  So, if Congress were really doing its job, it would refuse to even consider the matter as the entire agreement has NOT been submitted to Congress and the Administration admits that neither they or anyone on the negotiating team have seen these "secret" agreements.

No sane person would ever sign an agreement that did not state in writing ALL the conditions.  Would you sign a car loan that didn't say what constituted being late on a payment?  If you were told you had 30 days, but suddenly two days after it was due and while your payment was en-route they repossessed your car, would you be happy?  But it would be your own fault for not insisting that ALL the terms were there for you to read and understand.  But this is what Congress is doing, however, and they are being pushed by our Administration, which is saying, in effect, "Trust me...and them!"

Viewing Iran's behavior over the last 35 years, there is no basis for any degree of trust.  And this agreement has nothing in it that can be verified as requiring timely effective inspections.  So it is toothless and ineffective until or unless provisions to the contrary are shown in writing.

Yet our duly elected representatives are going to drink the Kool-aide; they will fail to over-ride the President's veto of their probably disapproval of this farce of an agreement.  And Iran has already stated, through their leader, that Israel will not exist within 25 years.  That is NOT an empty threat.  And with the ICBM development that this "agreement" allows, America will also be in range.

When the mushroom cloud does occur, a proper memorial should give credit to every administration member and elected member of Congress who did not vote to stop this farce.