Representing WHO?!

Earlier this week many rejoiced (myself included) that Congress voted against the Senate’s Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Congressional phone lines and inboxes were jammed by folks opposing this bill.

The bill, after all, has a plethora of problems beginning with it being unconstitutional. Many economists have also come forward opining that it cannot work. Taxpayers realize that they are going to foot the bill and are aware of the impending inflation that will most definitely be a result of printing so many greenbacks; a proven result from former years of monetary injections and corporate bailouts.

One might think that if a bill were proposed in Congress that was unconstitutional and an overwhelming majority of a state’s citizens were so opposed to it, that the Congressmen might be inclined to represent the people and uphold his or her oath of office.

Not so with John Tanner (8th District TN). No, Congressman Tanner seems to either think he knows what is best despite the aforementioned economists’ statements or he does not care what the Constitution or his individual constituents say, but rather helps those (corporations and central government) that will “help” him.

Constitution be damned, citizens be damned. He’ll do what he wants to. The same can be said of Tennessee’s Senators also.

Now before anyone accuses the me of being partisan since tanner is a Democrat, let it be said that this bill was pushed hard by a Republican administration hoping to be seen as a messiah just before the November elections. Not that the sister party does not intend the same thing.

The optimism faded Friday, October 3, when Congress passed this bill and King George signed it into “law.” What could have been different about this bill that would win over the key Republican and Democratic votes pray tell?

Apparently DC has an insatiable appetite for pork. Presto! The bill passes. With the amount of riders inserted into this bill, one may never know exactly what swayed these dignified [satire] representatives. Could it be the “increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands” or possibly the “seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility." It could even be the “tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia."

To this last option a fellow may posit that he has already invested more than he would like in the District of Corruption and seen no gains. Would a nation continue to put these same men in public office or would they desire better? I hope the latter.