The Cost of Ceremonies

Okay, that should prove the point. What our politicians obviously consider to be small change could provide a large change in the lives of those who need the money that is otherwise spent on pure monarchy-style nonsense. We simply do not need to waste such huge sums on parties and balls that are really only repayments for those who bought their own politician and now want to celebrate their acquisitions.

Here is a humble suggestion for our government. No one may write, discuss, be involved with or vote on any subject that they do not have personal knowledge of. If Welfare is up for grabs, then all participants must spend two months trying to live on the measly stipend provided for these families. I don't mean that they may do this while continuing to live in their Georgetown mansions, either. No, they would be required to find family housing, pay for their food, their transportation, their childcare, their clothing, their education and everything else from the miserably small amount that Welfare mothers must live on. Then, perhaps, these lawyers turned politicians might have some idea of the pain that they cause when they vote to please the lowest common denominator of their supporters.

The same would be true of votes on Medicare or food stamps or college loans or whatever. Politicians live in their own little world of money and parties and free trips and affluence that the normal human being isn't privy to by the mere fact of the vast difference in wealth and power. It simply makes no sense to have any group of people making up laws who have absolutely no idea of, and appear to have no compassion for, the consequences their actions have on other human beings.

One more suggestion. How about if we, the nation's voters, demand that all politicians be forced, while in office, to live on minimum wages and ban all other forms of income? Do you think that the attitudes towards the poor and middle class would change overnight? Do you think that the idea of the wealthy individuals and corporations actually paying their fair share of the load might become a bit more attractive to these folks?

If the politician isn't aware of the true depth of a problem, we all agree that he or she should not vote on the subject, right? Should we extend that edict to the voters, as well? No, probably not. Considering that less than half of those registered to vote actually do so, then eliminating those without a clue as to who they are voting for or what the issues truly are would leave very few people to vote at all. Wait! Would that be bad?

Return To Front Page

Comments?