Washington's greatest failure is the insatiable desire to embrace philosophical belief so rigidly for political advantange that it removes the capacity to act objectively in the best interests of the nation. This is demonstrated by representatives who signed the Grover Norquist pledge not to raise taxes without allowing flexibility to change position when the facts change. The same can be said when it comes to advocacy for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, rigidly enforcing policy that removes the capacity to respond to unexpected events. It is difficult to ignore 30 years of facts that prove the theory of trickle down economics to have been flawed that dramatically led to the enormous income gap we have in America and the dramatic rise of poverty that plague our country. And yet, the philosophical blackmail continues in the refusal to adjust the taxes of millionaires and billionaires that are now at 1931 rates. America elected President Obama to bring bold change to the nation and it was disheartening when the miniority leader of the senate publically proclaimed that his number one goal was to defeat the elected president and then proceeded to relentlessly use the filibuster on issue after issue to block national progress the people want. When the American public views the congress negatively by a whopping 91% that suggests frustration with the inability to compromise for the greater good. In other words, it demonstrates the danger the public sees in governance by philosophy alone. Philosophy was the driving factor behind three attempts to shut down the government by the republican party in one year. Philosophy was responsible for driving some representatives, Mr. Forbes one of them, that felt it better to vote the nation into default on its obligations than to honor the will of the people to act otherwise. The public finds it difficult to reconcile a representatives personal philosophy as more important than the nation's solvency. I am not confident congressman Forbes that you seriously are looking for feedback from the constituency on this troubling issue. Perhaps if you acted in non-partisan ways through compromise on the critical concerns of the country, like urging your leadership to bring the President's Jobs Act to a vote, or rescinding your commitment to the Grover Norquist pledge, or if you would simply acknowledge the indisputable facts regarding the income gap the people would see things differently. One thing you could do is to begin to share articles advancing views that may be contrary to your own. It's difficult to do this at times when one is so wrapped up in philosophy that they lose all sense of objectivity and then effectively become impotent problem solvers. What you end up with is an intellectually dishonesty that serves none of us.

Great attempt altogether. Really appreciate the effort, liked the topic. Thanks for sharing it.