Isn't it ridiculous when the same Congress, the same House of Representatives that vote to approve increased government spending later vote to disapprove increasing the debt that the spending creates? How can they change their minds so quickly, vote in such an illogical manner? Could it be politics?

Here's a "did you know". On January 10, 2010 there was widespread support in the Senate for the bipartisan Conrad-Gregg bill to establish an 18-member commission to recommend widespread spending cuts and fiscal reform. The bill would have created the Simpson-Bowles Commission and was worded to prohibit any debate or amendments to the commission's recommendations. It was to be a straight up-or-down vote in the Senate and then the House. John McCain co-sponsored the bill along with six other Republican senators and a like number of Democrats. Mitch McConnell made an impassioned speech from the well of the Senate recommending the need for such a commission and the fiscal reform it would bring. Yet, when the Senate vote was held only 16 days later, on January 26, the Senate blocked the bill with a straight party line vote of 53 Democrats voting in favor and 47 Republicans voting no, not enough to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster.

Both McCain and McConnell and the other GOP sponsors of the bill voted against it's passage. In fact, the record shows that when McCain and the other six other GOP senators who had actually co-sponsored he bill voted against it, it was the first time in Senate history that the sponsors who introduced the legislation voted against it!!

What happened you ask? Shortly after Senators Gregg and Conrad introduced the bill and McConnell made his supportive speech, Preident Obama also stated his support for the legislation, encouraging the Senate and the House to pass it, saying he would enthusiastically sign it.

Whoops! The Republicans decided they couldn't in good conscience vote for a bill that their bitter political enemy Barack Obama actually supported, even though it was something desperately needed by the country. It might make the President look good. Not good politics they decided. So the GOP made sure Judd-Gregg failed, voting it down on a straight party line vote Of 53 Democrats to 47 Republicans.

I'm sure there are other examples of how the Democrats cratered much-needed legislation sponsored by he Republicans--try Harry Reid's tabling votes on a federal budget for almost three years. Or even Obama himself. He proceeded to form the Simpson-Bowles commission, although it didn't carry the force of law it would have if authorized by the Congress. But when the commission published its findings and recommendations, what did Obama do? He ignored them. Why you ask? The report was published early in the mid-term election campaign cycle. Embracing lts cost-cutting and entitlement reform would have been bad politics.

If you really don't believe our government s broken, that we need an entirely new Congress, and that our political parties and system simply no longer serve the interest of the people, then you're not paying attention.