I think it's time to let Congress feel our election fury this November, as reflected in the latest Rasmussen Reports note that "just 9 percent [of Americans] say Congress is doing a good or excellent job." It was the first single-digit approval rating in Rasmussen's history, and it makes Bush's 30 percent approval seem like a stat to boast.
The study went on to explain, "Last month, 11 percent of voters gave the legislature good excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15 percent approval rating since the beginning of 2008. … Just 12 percent of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11 to 13 percent throughout 2008."
Of course liberals were immediately on the defensive, stating that the statistics were skewed. So let's just consider a couple of last week's congressional facts and headlines to see how they match up.
"Airlines urge Congress to curb oil speculation" – but they won't.
"Bush urges Congress to open new areas to oil drilling" – but they won't.
And the Associated Press reported last week, in the column "Congress mostly going through the motions for now," that "Some fights of the 110th Congress have lost their oomph in the waning months before the November elections, with both parties content to run out the clock on messy matters. …"
If Congress is making little relevance or improvement in Americans' lives, the question is: Why do we elect and re-elect them into office?
If you've ever heard the saying, "Too many cooks in the kitchen," then you know how I feel about Congress. We have more representatives than we need, and even more than the Constitution requires. Big or bigger government is not the solution to our problems – that is why Congress often faces gridlock and is counterproductive, because there are simply too many of them. Some of the founders even warned about the repercussions of a government that would grow too large.
What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately sacred about the present number of congressmen and congresswomen we have in the House of Representatives. Actually, the proper numbers of representatives from each state has been debated since our founders' time. The Constitution (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) requires and endeavors to assure fairness and equity by requiring at least one representative per state, two senators per state and representation in the electoral college. (At the other extreme, it states that "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000.") So why not go with the lesser amount? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more representatives by population.
I don't only think there are too many cooks in Congress' kitchen nowadays, but the numbers are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, if California represents a larger liberal voice with its 53 representatives, what chance or how fair is it for smaller more conservative states who have between one and five representatives and votes in the House? The U.S. doesn't need a new reapportionment act to raise the number of representatives, but a return to the Constitution to reduce the number of representatives in pursuit of creating more equitable regions or districts.
Personally, I believe, just as we have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one representative and two senators per state (the minimal by constitutional requirements). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can't it work for all the rest of the states? Here's a movie we all can star in: "Honey, I shrunk the Congress!"
I agree with the rationale of James Madison, a member of the Continental Congress and our fourth president, who advocated keeping the number of representatives within limits:
Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionally a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.
If we followed Madison's advice to "reverse" the process and have fewer representatives, they couldn't put the blame for their incompetence upon other members of Congress. They would probably get more done. There would be less gridlock. Plus financially speaking, reducing Congress would save us at least a couple hundred million dollars, if you consider all their staff, overhead, travel, pension plans, other perks, etc. And if we didn't like how they represented us, we would have an easier time correcting their voice or disposing them. Just a thought.
Bottom line, it is "we, the people," who have power over the government, not them over us. They are called to protect our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, not vice versa. And if they don't, I say again that the Declaration of Independence is very clear what we should do:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness….But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
In the words of Joseph Farah, CEO of WorldNetDaily, it's time we "Throw the bums out" of Congress!" It's time to replace them with "new guards" who:
Uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights
Protect Americans' inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Promote less government
Fight for fewer taxes
Demand balanced budgets
Secure our borders
Reduce our national deficit, debts, and dependence upon other nations
Disappointment with modern-day government and the preservation of our founders' America is exactly why I've just completed my book, "Black Belt Patriotism," which you can pre-order now and will be released in September through Regnery publishing. It is my critique of what is destroying our country and how we can rebuild it and restore the American dream as our founders established them. Bottom line, I wrote the book because, as that famous "Network" line goes, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
I heard it said once that it only took 2 percent of our population to create our nation. And that it still would only take 2 percent to change it today. Like me, if you don't like what you see today in America, then join me by being a part of the new 2 percent!
Don't quit fighting, America! We're not going to win back our country with a couple political punches. As my friend Bruce Lee once said, "A fight is not won by one punch or kick. Either learn to endure or hire a bodyguard."
Â
My wife, Gena, and I wish to extend our heartfelt condolences to the family of Tony Snow, particularly his wife Jill and their three children. He was an amazing man, news correspondent and political spokesman, with a gentle soul and an impeccable character. In life, he was a gentlemen to everyone and a model for us all of how to treat others. Even in his suffering and death, he showed us how to valiantly face our own mortality with Christian faith, courage, strength and hope.