I think we need more PIGs in government.

P.I.G. is not pork-barrel in government. What is P.I.G. you ask? P.I.G. is "PRAGMATISM IN GOVERNMENT" Is it pragmatic to have huge corporations paying $ 0.00 in income taxes? Of course not. Is it pragmatic to have a tax system legislated to give corporations TAX SUBSIDIES to outsource jobs, put Americans out of work, and drive our economy down? Of course not. A pragmatic approach to public policy (In my mind) consist of these pillars:

F - Is it fair? Is the public policy as enacted, reasonable and fair, neither penalizing any group of citizens or constituents too meanly not rewarding any group too generously, but offering equal opportunity and benefits under the law and/or policy. (In my mind, Social Security is unfair, it taxes salary to a level around $ 100,000, so the really big earners get a free ride, because they can and do also contribute to IRA's, making a multi-tiered retirement system. That's not fair.)

E - Is it enforceable? In many ways, this also falls under the "affordable" constraint. Laws and policies do not enforce themselves, there is a cost involved in enforcement and this must be included. An example - it may be apocryphal - is that it is against the law to carry "pliers" in a vehicle in some western states. Supposedly this law was enacted during the era of "range wars" but plainly this is unenforceable, thus unreasonable.

A - Is it affordable? Just as there are many, many, worthy causes, likewise there are a multitude of worthwhile and worthy actions that should be pursued as public policy. Realistically though, we simply can't "boil the ocean." Which actions should be pursued in public policy? These should be prioritized to give the "highest" return - where return is measured in positive outcomes, be that higher graduation rate, lower criminal recidivism rate, or whatever metric is appropriate. (Somehow, I doubt adventurous invasions into foreign countries under dubious circumstance to expend 1.000's of lives and trillions of dollars would rank in the top 1,000 items needing attention, but I digress.)

R - Is it reasonable? There are many examples of laws on the books that can be considered "reactionary." While these laws may make good political circus and pandering, laws and policy should act as guidelines, not defining to the nth degree ad infinitum, and not as a reactionary response. Another example - it is not "reasonable" to build a wall along the southern border of the U.S. It is reasonable to work with Mexico to develop economic plans that encourage growth of a strong middle class on both sides of the border. Mexican immigrants do not risk their lives for the fun of it, they do it because they want what we all want, an economic opportunity. (Of course, the G.O.P. plan may work - destroy the U.S. economy and the immigrants will stop coming!)

So, that's my pitch. I want to support someone whose perspective towards public policy incorporates four pillars - is it fair, enforceable, affordable, and reasonable? I'm a P.I.G., how about you?

What is wrong with democracy in America? Well, for starters we do not live in a democracy. According to Wikipedia, democracy is "is a form of government in which all eligible people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law." We live in a "constitutional republic" a form of government John Adams defined as a a government of laws, and not of men. Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of "majoritarnianism" and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from a "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify. This, of course, can make our form of government frustratingly slow and sloppy, but the goal is to ensure our freedoms are not encroached upon.

Plainly by definition, our government was designed to be based on compromise to prevent "tyranny of the majority", or any other form of tyranny. The fundamental form of our government came about via a compromise known as "The Great Compromise" or the "Connecticut Compromise" that led to our having a bicameral legislature, that is, a legislature consisting of two bodies, House and Senate. So, even before we had a Constitution, the founders of our nation recognized the need for compromise.

And yet. And yet. Today we find our country oddly enough held hostage by a tyrant - none other than "ideology". Thus, ideology in this extreme becomes fanaticism and tyranny, neither an acceptable position for a representative elected by the people. So, what has gone wrong?