The nature of politics in our nation's capitol is really quite unfortunate.  Partisanship is the order of the day and members seldom interact with members who are not part of their political party.

I have always tried to look upon Republicans as colleagues as well as adversaries, not enemies.

While I often don't agree with the Republicans' outlook on many of the issues facing America today, I recognize that the Founding Fathers set up a representative form of government where people vote into office the people that they think best represent their views.

It is for this very reason, politics in Washington needs to change.  There needs to be interaction between members of Congress who are not of the same political persuasion, if for the simple reason that each member of the House of Representatives represents the views of the over 600,000 Americans who elected them.  Compromise can only result from different perspectives finding common ground.

Unfortunately, as I look back at the year, I see how the excessively partisan nature of politics in Washington has moved the U.S. Congress's approval rating to one of its lowest levels ever.

Let's begin with Social Security "reform."  President Bush, with the support of his party in Congress, put forward an idea that would have partially privatized Social Security.

Whereas previous reform to the Social Security program had been worked out by a bi-partisan Social Security committee, this year the President put forward a "go it alone" approach, simply consulting members of his own party. 

The plan he put forward would have partially privatized Social Security, a non-starter for Democrats and millions of Americans and the proposal finally withered away early this Fall.

Next, we can look at the tragic case surrounding Terri Schiavo.  Former House Majority Leader, Tom Delay told a group of social conservatives before the Palm Sunday recall of Congress that God had given Schiavo to America to highlight the need to fight for a "culture of life."

Congressional Republicans called Congress back from recess to pass legislation that tried to overrule multiple Florida court decisions allowing Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube to be disconnected.  President Bush then cut his vacation short to fly back to Washington to sign the legislation into law.

This attempted breach of our Founding Fathers' notion of the system of checks and balances was only thwarted by the insistence of the Judicial Branch that Congress did not have the power to supersede the decisions of the Florida courts.

Again, a desire to rush to satisfy only one wing of the American public resulted in alienating a large majority of Americans who thought that the federal government shouldn't get involved in such a private family matter.

In June, papers across the country blazed headlines like this one from the Washington Post: "Funds for Health Care of Veterans $1 Billion Short."  It was completely unnecessary.  The funding crisis had been recognized almost a year before, yet nothing was done and Republican leadership had frozen out Democrats' attempts to address the crisis.

Finally, the debate on the budget reconciliation package which just passed the House of Representatives last month was so divisive, that the bill passed by only two votes.

The bill was typical of many that have passed this year.

To put it simply, the bill sought to "reconcile" emergency spending resulting from Hurricane Katrina by cutting funding from social programs like: school lunch programs, adult vocational education, housing vouchers, and assistance for women and children.

This bill was put forward, despite the fact that spending has never been reconciled for the costs of the war in Iraq.

To make matters worse, a separate bill includes increases in tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.

So, to be clear, the legislation meant to pay to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina (people who were disproportionately lower income), did so by cutting money for programs that help people who are disproportionately lower income, while increasing tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans, all the while not reconciling the money we are spending in Iraq.

Why didn't Democrats make the legislation better?  Why not put forward amendments that might garner more support than the one or two votes needed?  Because Republicans use legislative rules to block Democrats' efforts to amend legislation since they fear that these amendments will attract the support of more moderate Republicans and Democrats and the conservative Republican leadership will lose control. 

The real losers in debates such as these are the American people.

When a bill passes by only one or two votes, then the interests and opinions of nearly half our country have been ignored.

Sure, in a "first-past-the-post" democracy such as ours you don't need more than 50+1 percent to get legislation passed, and this will happen.  However, it is in the best interest of the nation if it's leadership attempts to build consensus rather than simply seek to get the one additional vote that they need to pass a piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, for all of us, consensus is not sought on important policy decisions such as Social Security reform, the Iraq war, and the budget.

If Congress really wants to improve the lives of American families and move our country forward in the Twenty First century, then we need to listen to the American people.

A good first step in that process would be if Democrats and Republicans in Washington would listen to one another more often than not.

In the thirteen years that I have served as an elected official for the people of South Florida, I have always been grateful for the input of my constituents.  Your questions, thoughts, and concerns are important to me.  Please do not hesitate to let me know about any issues you believe to be significant. 

Please feel free to contact my offices in Broward 954-437-3936, in Miami-Dade at 305-936-5724 or in Washington, D.C at 202-225-7931.

Thank you!