It is not often that I would, openly, agree with action taken by President Trump; yet this past week I did find myself doing just that—agreeing with a decision he made. Indeed, there is a great deal of adolescent name-calling and fruitless activity on both sides of the issue involving the governmental shutdown. Up to this point there has been nothing to provide a glimmer of hope that the end of this inane presidential decision is near. Day-by-day, the shutdown adds another day to the historical reality that never has a shutdown gone on for longer than 22 days. We are all too familiar with story after story of federal workers selling their blood plasma, cashing in certificates that been set aside for retirement, and doing what ever they can to keep their mortgage from being foreclosed, their car being repossessed, or their health insurance being canceled for non-payment. As we know, there are approximately 800,000 federal workers either on furlough or working for no pay. They have missed one paycheck and if the shutdown continues until this coming Friday, it will be two that have been missed. While the stories of survival are legion, the two sides in Washington continue to bicker with no resolution in sight.
The Democrats argued that the president should postpone his State of the Union Address until the shutdown is over. In what is deemed to be an act of retaliation, the president denied access to a military plane for the Speaker’s trip with her entourage to the Middle East and Brussels. The effect of his denial was the cancellation of her trip and I applaud the president for making the decision. What is evident, ever so often, is that politicians are out of touch with the people whom they, ostensibly represent. Common sense would seem to suggest that with what is occurring, including the number of people who are suffering from the inaction by the politicians, such a trip would be inappropriate at this time and could be viewed as a slap in the face to those who are suffering as well as to the general public. As decisions are made by politicians at the national, state or local level, there does seem to be a failure to recognize, or even care about the effect or impact on their constituents. You would think that the Speaker of the House as well as those who were scheduled to travel with her would see that this is not the thing to do at this time. Not so, and this is what is disturbing. When the Founding Fathers were arguing over what the new government should look like, they concluded that one arm of the legislature should be close to the people they represented, hence the establishment of the two-year term. Although this was a significant component of the founding process, the mandate has been lost. The overwhelming majority of the politicians at the national level are, perpetually, consumed with getting reelected and being an advocate for their constituents is lost. Often, they are simply the pawns of the special interest groups that make substantial financial contributions to their campaign.
It is difficult to fathom the insensitivity that is apparent in the decision to “take a trip”. It is my belief, that there are too many such trips made by politicians at the taxpayer’s expense. Commentators have identified specific politicians who seem to thrive on these boondoggles with very little pay-off to the citizens and no shame. The Pelosi junket would fall into this context of wasteful use of federal dollars. A plus for the president for halting the excursion.