WhackyNation

Remember that old Broadway show tune, “Promises, Promises”? Well, it has come to mind with reference to the current session of Congress and the fact that early in the session the controlling Democrats in both houses promised rapturously and often that they supported an end to pork, which they began calling “earmarks,” as if to take the curse off the “pork” label.

It didn’t take long for the Demos to forget their political “Promises, Promises.” In the worst display of forgetfulness, the lawmakers poured pork items into the new $290 billion comprehensive farm bill, despite the fact that President Bush had pledged to veto the legislation if it came to him with all the millions of dollars’ worth of pork in it.

True to his word, the President vetoed the bill. But that didn’t faze the Demos, who knew they had the support of all the lawmakers who had laced the farm bill with home-grown pork. Sad to relate, many Republican congressmen, who had invested the bill with their own brand of pork, joined the Demos in both houses to override the veto.

Without the help of the Republicans, it is probable that the President’s veto would have been sustained and the bill would have died the death it deserved. It was another indication that the G.O.P. lawmakers have failed to support their President when he needed their help most.

Fully two-thirds of the enormous farm bill will go to the much abused nutrition program, such as food stamps. The rest will go to equally unnecessary farm subsidies and the program designed as a “charity” allotment to farmers to keep them from planting crops deemed unneeded.

Is it any wonder that the national budget and the nation’s economic reins are out of control and food prices, gasoline prices, the housing crisis, and virtually everything else are leading us to a severe recession — or worse? Unfortunately, the Demos’ love affair with political pork has blinded them to the serious issues that need the lawmakers’ attention.

For example, if the Demos would end their blind love affair with the environmental extremists, they could join the Republicans in approving measures that would put the nation back on a prosperous economic path. One of those actions should be to end the extremists’ campaign to block the creation of new oil refineries.

Thanks to the extremists’ negative action, the U.S. has not built a new oil refinery for more than 30 years. It’s one of the reasons prices at the gasoline pumps have skyrocketed and are now at the $4-a-gallon level. The lack of refineries has placed us at the mercy of the foreign oil-producing nations.

Another equally significant issue related to the gasoline shortage is the failure of the U.S. to build nuclear-power plants, so vital in furnishing the people with inexpensive electric power. We have not built a nuclear plant for more than three decades, while other nations in Europe and Asia are surpassing us in power supplies.

There are many other areas in which the Demos should “divorce” their extremist bedfellows and start taking care of the day-to-day needs of the American people. If American voters are aware of the serious needs, they will vote the Demos out of office at the federal, state, and local levels in November.

As I expected in this tantalizing and ever-advancing Computer Age, one of my most cherished ideas has received a shot in the arm, so to speak, and has emboldened my belief that my original idea has an increased chance of being adopted and becoming a most important function of tomorrow’s federal, state, and local governments.

The shot in the arm has come in the form of a new and exciting service on the Internet called “GotoMeeting.Com,” and it has received daily notice on radio from the gifted commentator, Michael Medved, as well as other radio mainstays and the advertising columns of daily newspapers.

“GotoMeeting.Com” has given Americans the fascinating opportunity of coming together for meetings without the necessity of coming together, as it were. In other words, you or I or any other persons now have the opportunity to gather people together for meetings without leaving their homes. It’s a most intriguing development, and I predict it will become an extremely popular device. It will save on gasoline, too, in this day of soaring gasoline prices!

Now, as to its significance with regard to my idea: In my new book, F! D! F! (Fire! Dammit! Fire!) A Feast of New Ideas, I have detailed a far-reaching program that is related to the “GotoMeeting.Com” function on the Internet. However, in my case, the idea is primarily devoted to lawmakers in Congress, the 50 state legislatures, and city and county councils.

In my book, I have suggested that a special lawmakers’ electronic packet should be developed for use by congressmen, legislators, and council members so that they could stay at home most of the year and travel to Washington, state capitals, and downtown council chambers only for the most important occasions.

The electronic packet I have proposed would include TV and Internet facilities, two-way communication systems and other electronic wonders so that they could “attend” meetings and exchange ideas with other lawmakers, just as they do when they are physically present in Congress, the legislatures, or the council chambers.

In effect, it is a much broader but very similar concept to the one embodied in the “GotoMeeting.Com” program on the Internet. It is easy to see what the various advantages would be with the use by all lawmakers of such an electronic packet at every level of government.

First and foremost, by staying at home most of the year, the lawmakers would be more accessible to their constituents, who would be better able to link their wishes and opinions to their immediate representatives. Wouldn’t it be even more productive if citizens in their home district could “tune in” to each lawmakers’ electronic packet?

Second, consider what a gigantic financial saving these magic packets would be for all the taxpayers! We already know that most members of Congress are flying back and forth from Washington frequently for business purposes or just to be home for a week or a weekend.

Third — and I write this one with tongue in cheek — by keeping lawmakers home most of the year, they would be less likely to engage in what we might call “hanky-panky” in the capitals of the nation or the states. I don’t think it’s necessary for me to go into detail about the nature of “hanky-panky.” All you need do is read your daily newspaper!

Of all the outlandish actions the present Democratic Congress has taken in the recent past, the stupidest of them all is the investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform into the charge that pitching ace Roger Clemens was injected with steroids and human-growth hormones (HGH) at least 16 times a decade ago.

Doesn’t Congress have anything more important to do than stick its nose into an arena it has no business investigating — professional sports? It’s apparent that the lawmakers are more interested in the publicity value of the affair than they are in attending to the important business of Congress.

It’s no surprise that the congressional investigation, well covered by television, radio, and all the news services, has produced nothing more than unsupported accusations by Clemens’ onetime trainer, Brian McNamee, and pitcher Andy Pettitte and vehement denials by Clemens. It has turned out to be nothing more than a “he-said, he said” exchange.

Most significant of all is the fact that the whole ridiculous episode should have been tossed into the waste basket before it started because the charge is that Clemens took the medications at least ten years ago — before pro-baseball officials took action to ban the use of steroids and other drugs to enhance performance.

In other words, even if Clemens should prove to have been lying and actually did use the steroids and HGH, he did it before their use was outlawed and therefore broke no rules. It’s not unlike a case that the court system would toss out because a statute of limitations has run out. Frankly, I think the entire steroid controversy has been blown out of importance and even legal bounds. Pro sports should have recognized long ago that the intake of certain medications should be considered the athlete’s business and not that of the league, the courts, or even Congress.

In that regard, I recall an observation made by medical researchers a few years ago. After a longtime study, they said steroids and other performance-enhancing medications shorten an athlete’s life and are, therefore, dangerous. Athletes who ignore that warning are taking a perilous road. But that should be enough to warn them against doing so.

In any event, it is clear that probing pro athletes for the use of steroids and other medications is absolutely no business of the Congress of the United States.

The monstrously large and greedy hand of Big Government has stretched out once more to grasp an important private area in which it has no business interfering — the vast and significant domain of private charities and foundations, where, traditionally, it has been “persona non grata,” and wisely so.

For some time now, the federal government, spurred by several Liberal elements in Congress, has had its eye on the billions in the treasury of the world’s largest and most generous foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Liberals have cast their collective eye on the foundation as a result of the gift to the foundation of $31 billion by another billionaire, Warren Buffett, increasing the foundation’s total to more than $60 billion.

Together, the Gateses and Buffett have agreed to expand the Gates’ remarkably generous program to promote better health and education in the world’s most poverty-stricken regions. That program is going well everywhere, and it must not be sullied by the greedy hand of Big Government.

However, the Liberals are pointing to the examples of the convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and irregularities discovered in the management of Red Cross and Nature Conservancy funds to make a case for their insistence that the operations of the Gates Foundation and other charity organizations must be controlled by government under a new set of rules.

At the moment, the elements in Congress seeking to invade private charities’ arena are relatively quiet, possibly because the Gates Foundation in particular has achieved extraordinary successes in its multi-million-dollar programs to fight AIDS and other diseases in several African nations.

But large charitable institutions should remain on guard to forestall a new assault on their funds by the tax-mad creatures in Congress and in federal government. Under no conditions should money advanced for worthy charitable purposes be subjected to federal tax programs.

In fact, Congress should be following an opposite tack and move to pass legislation specifically forbidding government or any other source from trying to extract funds from any charity for tax purposes. The whole idea is devilish and un-American, and the people should stand at the ready to ward it off for all time.

Furthermore, it is well known that Gates, Buffett, and other billionaires and millionaires in our midst have already paid their dues in the form of federal taxes. Wouldn’t any proposal to tax their foundation funds actually amount to a case of “double taxation,” something that has long been forbidden in America?

It’s safe to say that if Congressman Jim McDermott, probably the most Liberal of the Democrats in Washington, D.C., had been a Republican and not a member of the ruling party in the capital, the House would have demanded that he resign for committing a federal crime.

Eleven long years after he committed that crime, the United States Supreme Court has rejected McDermott’s appeal from a conviction for leaking an illegally taped telephone call back in 1996. He faces fines of at least $800,000, as a result, but still the Democratic leadership in the House has taken no action against him.

The fines the Washington State congressman will have to pay will undoubtedly not come out of his own pocket, because he set up a legal-defense fund seven years ago to conduct his appeals — and there is little question that the fund has drawn far more than he will need to pay for his criminal action.

In case you’ve forgotten — and, after 11 years, it’s probable that McDermott was counting on the public forgetting — the congressman received an illegally taped recording a Florida couple made of a politically crucial phone call involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and others, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican. The call involved ethics allegations that had been made against Gingrich.

McDermott’s criminal mistake was to ignore federal law and to turn the illegal tape over to the news media. His appeals have been based on the misconception that he had a right to give the wrongfully obtained tape over to the press because, he said, the public had a right to know.

After the court’s decision, McDermott said, according to the Associated Press: “I knew when I asked the Supreme Court to review this case that the odds were against me. Nonetheless, I thought that the constitutional principles presented — the First Amendment protection of truthful speech and the separation-of-powers doctrine — warranted the court’s attention.

“I pursued this case based on my belief in the people’s right to know, and I continue to believe it was my sworn responsibility to vigorously defend that right.”

Members of Congress, above all other public servants, should know full well that leaking private conversations is a federal offense. The suit against McDermott was brought by Congressman Boehner, who praised the highest court’s decision last week and said, in response to McDermott’s opinion that “the public has a right to know”:

“When you break the law in pursuit of a political opponent, you’ve gone too far. Members of Congress have a responsibility not only to obey the laws of our country and the rules of our institution, but also to defend the integrity of those laws and rules when they are violated.”

The House should quit stalling and, in the words of Yogi Berra, “trow da bum out!”

Many years ago, as a daily newspaper columnist in Seattle, I floated an idea I thought would catch on quickly and be accepted across the nation. Although I repeated it often in print, in TV and radio commentaries, and in speeches in many cities, it still hasn’t caught on — and I am deeply disappointed. So, I must try it once again.

This was the idea: With more and more couples working to make ends meet, private day-care facilities have been strained beyond capacity. At the same time, complaints concerning poor day-care conditions and, unfortunately, molestations by day-care workers who were incompetent or who hid criminal pasts have been soaring.

The couples were caught in a bind. If one of them quit work, the family wouldn’t have enough income to keep a happy home. And if the parents decided to continue using the private day care, they risked having something disastrous happen to their children.

My solution was simple and practical. I proposed that Congress pass legislation providing tax incentives for businesses and industries to install day-care facilities on their premises. In that way, parents could take their children to the day care at their place of work and look in on them whenever they chose. They could also oversee the care given by the workers employed by their business or industry.

The president of the TV and radio station which I served as a commentator for a dozen years liked the idea and promised he would create a day-care facility at the station site as soon as Congress acted to pass the tax-incentive legislation. I was told the legislation was needed, because the station couldn’t afford to set aside a day-care facility and man it without the tax break.

Others agreed and promised me they would work to get Congress to approve a tax-incentive bill. Despite the appeals of many persons, Congress still hasn’t acted to pass such a bill or even to assign it to committees in both houses.

What will be needed to shock the congressmen into action in this case? I think a national movement started and run by working parents would do the trick. It’s apparent that Congress won’t move until it feels the pressure of voters across the country.

In the meantime, the day-care centers are bulging with children as working parents go on dropping their children off and taking the risks they know are present. How long can we permit this dangerous situation to continue?

Try this one, for example: A Democratic congressman — and not a Republican congressman! — recently introduced a bill that would drastically reduce the great cost advantage the lawmakers have in buying prescription drugs.

The Democratic congressman is Mark Dayton, a Minnesotan well known as a strong liberal. Was his bill a political ploy and a campaign talking point to win voters? Before you get excited and start applauding or booing, you should know that several Republican members in both houses of Congress have signaled that they would vote for Dayton’s amendment to the new Medicare drug bill.

Now, why would Democrat Dayton and the Republicans vote for the amendment? Good question. The answer: First, they all know they could use their action to brag in future campaigns. And, second, and far more important, the leaders of both parties in the two houses have already let it be known that the amendment is certain to be dropped in conference committee.

Why bring up all this tomfoolery in Congress? Because it is my hope that American citizens exercise their God-given anger and start demanding that all the special privileges enjoyed by Congress and denied the rest of the population come to an end. It’s long past time that elected officials live by the same standards that govern the rest of us

It isn’t simply the freebies and much lower rates they enjoy in the medical programs Congress voted for itself long ago and has retained for years. The special favors and advantages they have enjoyed for so long apply to many other programs.

For instance, they have their own retirement program, which is far superior in pension rewards and conditions than the rest of the nation is afforded in the Social Security system. While ordinary citizens count their retirement funds in a few hundred dollars, many congressmen can retire and draw stipends in six or even seven figures!

The expense accounts congressmen enjoy could never be matched by the rest of us. The freebies they receive in meals and other goodies are unmatched anywhere else.  I believe that only a constitutional amendment will right this leaky ship. Congressmen should not be recipients of special privilege. They already make very handsome annual salaries.

Oh, and that reminds me of one other special privilege, which is sickening to taxpayers. A special commission Congress authorized some time ago recommends regularly how large a salary increase the legislators should receive — and you can bet that it is always a handsome amount. All Congress has to do is say “Yea” or “Nay” to the increase. We all know they just can’t say “No” — or “Nay.” What a racket!

I’m sure you’ve heard it said or written that one of the major curses of democracy is that lawmakers keep piling on more and more unnecessary laws and regulations each year — mainly because they don’t know how to stop or, worse, that they refuse to stop because all those laws support their political power.

It’s the “bet you can’t eat just one” principle made famous by Madison Avenue in its volley of newspaper, magazine, and TV/radio ads. The penchant for adding law after law in federal, state, and local governments could be ascribed to greed, incompetence, or just plain stupidity and disregard for the real needs of citizens.

Whatever the reason, I don’t believe anyone — except politicians, that is — will dispute the fact that we have far too many laws and don’t know how to junk them. Well, I think have the answer, at last — if only the nation’s voters would be willing to consider it and act upon it.

Mark this: If the American people are in earnest about putting an end to the glut of laws and regulations that have marked the creation of monstrously BIG government, all they have to do is take action necessary to write and pass just one more! That’s right, just one more!

The “one more” could be in the form of an amendment to the United States Constitution and to the constitutions of all 50 states — as well as the charters of every city and county in America. Tall order, you say? Not really. It could be one law or amendment that would be written in the same way for all governments, from the federal down to the smallest municipal government.

And that amendment would read something like this: “Any public official proposing a new law would also be required to select another existing law, already on the books, that would automatically be repealed on the same date the new amendment is adopted.” Is that clear enough? I think it is eminently clear.

It’s a relatively simple concept. To pass one law, lawmakers would be duty-bound to kill another one that has been on the books — sometimes for a century or more. It’s a sort of political eye-for-an-eye technique that would not only stem the flood of new and unnecessary legislation, but also get rid of a lot of old, outmoded, and useless laws.

I first introduced the idea many years ago in newspaper columns and have repeated it in editorials, TV and radio commentaries, and speeches I have delivered while on the national lecture circuit. Reaction to it has been mixed, but most of it has leaned toward the notion that “it’s a great idea but impossible to get passed.”

I’m not so sure that it’s an impossible law. Frankly, if the idea is properly presented to public assemblies, to readers of newspapers and magazines, and to radio listeners and television viewers, I believe it would soon catch on and be accepted and favored by more than 90 percent of the people.

Would important, necessary laws be endangered? Hardly. Each new law would have to target the law to be repealed; as a result, the legislative body considering any new law would have to consider the impact of the elimination of the old law that would be repealed. Simple, isn’t it?

A little over a year ago, I predicted that the war on terror would become less partisan once Democrats became responsible for providing security. I thought it would happen post 2008, but it’s happening a little earlier. Here is what I wrote a while back…..

“A Bipartisan War on Terror: Not Yet, But It’s Coming”

There is an old saying in politics that goes “politics ends at the water’s edge.” It means that Democrats and Republicans may duke it out in the halls of Congress when it comes to taxes, health care, and education, but both parties will stand unified when it comes to foreign policy. During the heights of the Cold War, there was a consensus among political parties when it came to defense spending, opposing communism, and endorsing the “containment doctrine.” Sure, there were times of partisan disagreement (the nuclear freeze, unilateral disarmerment), but in general, both parties stood shoulder to shoulder on issues of national defense.

As many look around today, they ask themselves where this spirit has gone. We see Democrats ripping into the Bush Administration for the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and nominations such as Alberto Gonzalez and John Bolton. It seems as if the notion of politics ending at the water’s edge is in short supply. Some wonder if this partisan divide concerning foreign policy will ever end.

I don’t wonder. I know it will. We simply have to look to history as our guide.

The notion that Republicans and Democrats were instantly unified on foreign policy during the Cold War is something we like to believe through the rose-colored tint of revisionist history. The truth however is less idealistic. When Truman came to office, and inherited a new, bi-polar, nuclear world, the Republican Party attacked him relentlessly. Everything that went wrong was Truman’s fault. Every setback in the Cold War was the fault of Democrats. The absurdity of the attacks reached a pinnacle when Republicans accused Truman of “losing China.” Now Truman no more “lost China” than the Greeks lost Atlantis.

But then something funny happened on the way to reaching a crescendo partisan attacks. The Republican Party, led by Dwight Eisenhower won the presidency. The Republicans even took control of the House for two short years. And oh how one’s perspective changes once your on the inside looking out, rather than the outside looking in. Finding themselves responsible for crafting foreign policy rather than lobbing cheap shots as those who were, Republicans, almost overnight, became more understanding of Truman’s dilemmas.

And the exact same thing is going to happen (eventually) when Democrats win back the White House. Either in 2008 or some time after that, a Democrat is going to be elected president. And when that happens, Democrats will be responsible for keeping Americans safe. At which time, the Patriot Act is going to start seem much more like a valuable tool for fighting terrorism than an infringement on civil liberties. Guantanamo Bay is going to become a practical and reasonable place to keep dangerous men, rather than the “gulag of our time.” What happened to Republicans in 1952 is going to happen to Democrats in 2008 or 2012. Burdened by the responsibility of actually governing, they will no longer have the luxury of lobbing petulant cheap shots. Self-righteous whining will have to give way to making hard decision that affect the security of millions of Americans.

And what will the Republicans be able to say? Nothing. Republicans, having drafted the Patriot Act, and created Guantanamo Bay, will look like hypocrites if they subject Democrats to the same type of criticism Democrats tossed at them. Conversely, Democrats, being forced to confront the same issues the Bush Administration did, will have a greater sense understanding and empathy. The end result will be that the partisan intensity over the “war on terror” will abate. Once again, you will hear representatives from both parties talking about how “politics ends at the water’s edge.” But as before, it will not occur due to a sense of bipartisanship but a realization that the “tools” you criticize others for using may end up in your own “tool box” down the road.

It’s kind of like how Yankee’s fans hated Roger Clemens….until he got traded….to the Yankees.

——————————-

Now read the latest from the NY Times. The Dems are signing on to NEW SPYING POWERS for the President. Oh how the tune changes when you have the responsibility to govern rather than just lob cheap pot shots.

If ever the American people received a wakeup call about how rotten the political system was faring in the nation’s capital, it came recently with the report that members of Congress and their aides had made at least 23,000 trips to cities everywhere in the world in the past five and a half years — all of those trips paid for by businesses, industries, professions, and lobby groups! Twenty-three thousand!

Will the people awaken to the implications of all those freebies, paid for by groups seeking special favors from the congressmen? What it means is that honest government is virtually impossible to achieve in what is so often referred to as “the greatest nation on earth.” In other words, we’ve been put on notice that members of Congress can be “bought” at a price — and that price is free vacations to Paris, Tokyo, Athens, Calcutta, Moscow, Stockholm, Madrid, Rome, London, Vienna, Hong Kong, and any city you can name — all with plane fares, hotels, entertainment, meals, and all the rest paid for by the lobbyist intent upon buying legislative and other favors from key members of Congress.

If that doesn’t make you want to throw up and throw your congressman or congresswoman out of his or her job in Washington, D.C., then you must not give a damn about honest government in this land. The question becomes: When in the world are American citizens going to become aroused and resolve to do something about all the expensive freebies being offered to our representatives in national government — and being accepted heartily?

In this present Congress, members have literally laughed at the protests over the acceptance of freebies from lobbyists. For the news media, they have made grand statements about the need to end the freebies and return honest government to the halls of Congress. But as soon as they have made their phony pitches to the press, they have turned around and decided that nothing can really be done to correct the dishonest situation.

That’s why I have been saying for some time that the people must demand the right of national initiative, whereby the people can adopt initiatives that will force members of Congress to turn down offers from lobbyists and others. And, if getting the right of initiative takes too long a time, the people should demand that their congressional representatives offer them the right to approve an amendment to the Constitution that would end the freebies for all time.

I think both measures should be considered — a national initiative process similar to that now enjoyed by many states on one hand, and a constitutional amendment that would both create a national-initiative system, as well as write the amendment forbidding freebies for all time, on the other.

Maybe that sounds like an enormous job for the people to undertake, but it’s the only way we are going to clean out the freebie gang from the halls of Congress and, for the first time, make it possible to get legislation and government that is not tarnished by the presence of all those freebie bucks in the hands of unscrupulous congressmen!

Is it worth the effort? It has to be. If the freebie culture continues to rule the roost in Washington, D.C., the present money-mad nature of government will only get worse. And, eventually, it will lead to a popular revolt and the end of truly representative government in this once “greatest nation on God’s green earth.”

Twice now within the past half century of American history, the Democrats in and out of Congress have been disciples of the old saw, “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” They did it first in withdrawing support from our military forces in the Vietnam War, a war we could have and should have won — and now they are repeating their defeatist tactics in the Iraqi War.

Aiding the Demos’ defeatist cause, unfortunately, are the majority of the print and broadcast news media, who continue their disgusting barrage of words and propaganda against President George W. Bush. If the media had not joined the Democrats in brainwashing the people with their incessant, one-sided defeatist view of the Iraqi War, victory would have been quicker and easier.

Without a doubt, Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern governments drew aid and comfort from the anti-war protesters in the U.S. — and, as a result, they have poured troops, arms, and money into the insurgents’ cause, prolonging the war and making the democratization of Iraq a much tougher and more prolonged effort.

Most of the congressional Democrats who are now lambasting Bush daily and vowing to bring the troops home immediately, thus insuring defeat once again, are fumbling to hide their hypocrisy. In the beginning, they favored our invasion of Iraq and even applauded our effort to capture the nation’s evil dictator, Saddam Hussein.

But, conveniently forgetting their past, they saw national elections coming up in 2008 and, putting political ambition ahead of patriotism, they reversed course and became anti-protesters. Their motto seems to be that winning elections is far more important than the nation’s security and its willingness to go to the aid of people thirsting for freedom and democracy.

Also — and this seems to me to be even more important — they have quickly forgotten that we are in a worldwide conflict against international terrorists, a conflict that has already cost American lives at home in the 9/11 attack and abroad in the Middle East and other regions.

Lost in the Democrats’ political deceit is the primary motive in President Bush’s courageous move to gather 40 allies to invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam, and establish freedom and a democratic government in that beleaguered nation. That motive: What greater gift could the world’s greatest power give to a downtrodden country than freedom and democracy?

Despite the daily rantings of columnists, editorialists, and reporters in America’s print and broadcast news media, I think historians will eventually recognize the grand effort of President Bush, the U.S. military, and our allies in making that gift possible.

Only Congress can make federal laws or initiate constitutional changes by referendum to the people, but when Congress legislates contrary to the national will, the only recourse the people have is to write angry letters to their representatives and their senators.

Washington State and many other states provide voters with the right to change laws or to make new ones through the initiative process. But the United States Constitution does not give citizens that right on a national scale. I call it the most serious oversight committed by the founding fathers.

However, that oversight can be corrected with an amendment to the Constitution. Why not give the people nationally the same right of initiative that has been granted to many states? We cherish that right in Washington State, and the people have used the right of initiative many times to create new law or correct laws made by the legislature.

It’s no surprise that members of Congress have turned thumbs down whenever the right of initiative comes up. They simply do not want to be overruled by the public. For that reason, it would be futile to expect senators and representatives to propose a constitutional amendment that would create a national right to initiative action.

I have been trying to promote the national-initiative idea for close to 40 years in newspaper columns, editorials, speeches on the national lecture tour, television commentaries, and my books. It has been an extremely frustrating experience, believe me. But I will not quit trying.

I first tried out the idea on John Gardner, who was then the director of Common Cause, an organization I thought should have been the logical one to carry out the proposal and win national support for it. At the time, Gardner heard me out and told me he thought the idea was “great.” But, for some reason, he never took action on it — or, at least, he didn’t to my knowledge.

I refuse to give up. I will go on repeating the idea again and again until it catches on and someone with considerable national clout hears it and runs with it. Frankly, I don’t understand why educators, historians, editorial writers, and others in the news media don’t grasp the idea and run with it.

Why is it so important to me? Because, as I have stated so many times, the right of initiative represents the public’s most important guarantee that its collective voice will be heard — especially when national leaders, including the President, and the members of Congress thwart the national will and ignore the people’s greatest concerns and needs.

I am puzzled by one more aspect of this issue: Why have no men nor women running for seats in Congress taken up the cause for the right of national initiative and made it a vital part of their campaign for office? It seems to me that it would be an extremely attractive issue and garner them many additional votes.

At the same time, I would hope that teachers of history at all school levels would get behind the idea and introduce their classes to the fact that so many states have the right of initiative — but that it is denied Americans at the national level.

One of the most important regulations in the history of American labor relations was made some time ago NOT by Congress, as would have been proper, but by a federal agency! Adding to the problem was the fact that the full impact of the new regulations did not come to light for several years after they were made.

In the beginning, it was the National Labor Relations Board — an unfortunate holdover from the days of the Socialist-leaning New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt — that dealt a knockout blow to collective bargaining and stacked the deck in favor of management.

The N.L.R.B. scuttled rules that had been developed over more than 50 years of labor law. It decided that employers could lock out their employees in a dispute and hire non-union replacements. Whatever some management executives called it at the time, it amounted to nothing less than legal strike-breaking.

The new policy gave employers an unfair advantage at the bargaining table, and it upset the delicate balance in labor negotiations. In Washington State, we saw the impact of the jolting policy change, particularly in the bitter disputes in the shipyards. Shipyard workers were locked out when they could not agree on a new contract with Lockheed, and the company began hiring non-union replacements.

At the time, I also criticized the union for seeking unemployment pay by revising state labor law, because it was simply another form of strike-breaking that would have given the union an unfair advantage. I haven’t changed my mind in that regard and have urged both union and management to play the game honestly.

However, in the long haul, I believe Congress should have restored balance in relationships between unions and management by rescinding the N.L.R.B.’s one-sided policy — and, at the same time, should have reminded the N.L.R.B. that under the Constitution, federal law is made by Congress, not appointed federal agencies.

As a matter of fact, it is long past time for Congress to examine the entire federal structure and start eliminating unnecessary bureaus on one hand and curtailing the “law-making” tendencies of the bureaus that remain valid. And, finally, in one masterful stroke, Congress should examine the entire federal structure to return to the states those important actions that belong at the local level.

Big Government has become gargantuan, and the rights of private citizens have been usurped for half a century. Congressional action should be taken before the great danger of advancing Socialism takes over the entire nation and destroys the dream of a free republic that was made a reality by our forefathers.

I cannot help but repeat the warning issued more than a century and a half ago by the British statesman, Lord Thomas B. Macaulay, who warned that democracies last about 200 or so years, and then collapse because people depend upon Big Government to hand down all their needs and, thus, seize power.

Was Lord Macaulay right? I think he was decidedly so. And, it is chilling but natural to remind ourselves that our democracy is slightly over that 200-year mark!

Many reporters on the congressional beat have been complaining lately about the growing habit of the lawmakers to come and go — all of it at taxpayer expense. That is, they find all kinds of excuses to adjourn for a week or two weeks or more, most often to suit their personal convenience.

I am reminded of a proposal I have made dozens of times in pri