Counting on the Counties

It can get a little discouraging listening to what is happening to our country.  I spoke with a friend the other day who railed against the lobbyists in Washington (and the state) only to comment that his business partners gave several thousand dollars to Paul Ryan (R) in Wisconsin and he "...didn't even show up on time for their meeting...".  This friend, generally opposed to all lobbying, said he didn't make contributions that would be applied to those efforts.  My statement to him was, "you know we'd be in more trouble if Paul Ryan showed "...up on time and ready to flex..." for your groups generous donation".  The fact that he was late, would indicated to me that there is no quid pro quo like what is going on in Washington according to Pennsylvania Senate contender Joe Sestak(D).  The fact of the matter is that there is a place, as well as an admonition for lobbying.  Even George Washington in his famous Farewell Address  said so much.  "In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union...and excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views..."  He goes on to say that one of the tactics used is to misrepresent the interests of others to the one who influences gain.  A robust system of lobbying assures us that all interests are heard.  Groups can unite and communicate the message they want heard.  They should unite and be heard.  The span of federal government is not conducive to making these decisions because it's reach to the local is limited.  Government itself is not conducive to efficiently executing the actions it pursues.  In addition to lobbying influence, local government is better able to manage this, but only if those in power understand the limit and the importance of the power they wield.    

Former speaker of the house Tip O'neil is famous for saying that all politics are local.  There has been some criticism of that philosophy in recent years as we live more and more in a world that is flat.  But is it possible that technology will allow us to more specifically manage our homes and our cities and our counties better than a central government that seeks to impose with no real knowledge of need?  Would a local government, staffed by men and women of character, and integrity not be more inclined to push back on the government funding imposed upon it by the federal bureaucracy?  Would an operational county government staffed with men and women of character not push back on obligations that are beyond it's ability to provide?  Would people of character in local office understand that at some point we must say "No", and accept the sacrifice that such a statement will require?  I don't really know, for sure.  I don't have all the answers.  But I have to think that a people that are moral, and ethical - God fearing individuals would be better positioned to accept the sacrifice and make the decision.  Are there any left?

With the incapacity of our federal bureaucracy and congress to deal with the issue of deficits maybe it will take an organized effort from below to quell the mounting disaster that is our addiction to spending through debt.  Can we?  I think only if we realize Tip O'neil's adage can and should still play today:  All politics are local.  The politics of spending can be stopped locally.  The politics of Washington can be stopped locally.  The politics of bureaucracy can be stopped locally.  But only if we get men and women of character to step our of their lives, their churches, their sports and their recreation long enough to say, "Enough".  And back that sentiment with a willingness to sacrifice and act.