The US, such a wonderful and amazing country. The founders had such incredible insight in the way they designed the constitution. Except, it was only a little different from the British Parliament. "Baby steps", I suppose, not all that amazing when you look at it. And here we are, at a pass. Nothing gets done (which in some ways might be a good thing) because we have sides that are always at odds. If congresscritter Zed wants to do a thing, he has a bunch of hurdles to jump over, which is as it should be, but if the opposition party does not like Zed's idea, it could be dead in the water. Some of Zed's ideas have merit, others are just silly or wasteful. In this polemic environment, how should the government deal with issues? If nothing can get done, one might even ask, "why bother?" More importantly, how might we fix the stalemate problem? Because, after all, Zed's proposal may have been truly unworthy, but if it were aimed at an important issue, the net result is stagnation, even decay, with respect to the given issue. Therefore, I would suggest that the legislative process be revised. Instead of semi-random proposals to fix what may or may not be important matters, the congress ought to begin by first identifying those matters (flowchart: is there a problem? Yes: seek a solution; no: move on), prioritizing them, then moving on them. Once a problem has been identified, a solution must be reached, no punting. It would be like turning the process inside out in order to make it work. I want to see certain things done. Other people want certain other things done. None of us will ever be satisfied, just ain't gonna happen. But to throw out all progress because we cannot get what we want is counter-productive. We can only get closer to our goals through compromise, which means we are still not satisfied, but maybe we have gotten a little bit of what we want. As it stands, we are a house divided, fighting when we should be working together. That is not the road to better lives for any of us (well, maybe a very few).