Shouldn't Politicians Eventually Become Statesman?

SHOULDN'T POLITICIANS EVENTUALLY BECOME STATESMAN?

Since our American political system has become one where politicians seem to run for office forever and spend obscene amounts of money on their campaigns, we shouldn't be surprised that once elected, our elected officials are so often dysfunctional. When a bunch of guys sitting around in an office or in a bar often seem to have a clearer idea of what needs to be done than our elected officials, one should realize that we have approached a political reality that is the equivalent of the "inmates running the asylum." When more time is spent discussing Tiger Woods and his alleged trysts than how to put our jobless back to work, there is something very wrong with our society!
Our elected officials put together patchwork proposals, filled with "pork," that are unnecessarily expensive, and do not adequately address the needs of the American public. Our elected officials tell us that they recognize the problem, and that is of the highest priority. Then they tell another group that their problem is the highest priority. And then, they don't adequately address either!
Let's look at the United States' pressing needs at the moment. Most observers would agree that the economy and the joblessness rates are the most disturbing! Yet, let's look at how our government has addressed these challenges. The much- maligned TARP (meaning TROUBLED ASSET RECOVERY PLAN) bailed out our major banks, because of the theory that these institutions were "too big to fail," and that the ramifications of bank failures would cause economic catastrophe. The government is now elated that the plan will cost $200 billion less than believed, because of early repayment by several banks. Yet, two banks who have not yet repaid the monies, Citi (owing $20 billion) and Wells Fargo (owing $25 billion) now are pleading with the government to be allowed to repay these amounts, and the government is telling them that they cannot repay it unless they raise substantial additional funds. Citi and Wells Fargo state that not repaying the TARP funds puts them at a competitive disadvantage against those that did, because of the additional restrictions associated with TARP. Remember that many non-banks reorganized to make themselves banks in order to be able to receive the TARP funds (predominantly investment houses, etc). Now, the government is discussing how to account for this $200 billion "windfall," reportedly discussing paying down the enormous national deficit/ debt, and using those monies for other purposes, such as creating jobs. However, the language of the TARP legislation specifically speaks of lending, so most viable job programs could not be funded with those funds. Adding to the farce and follies is the fact that TARP was supposedly created so that banks would free-up lending, which it has not done. Most banks have used those funds simply to enhance their own financial position!
Several months ago, our representatives were SO pleased with themselves for creating what they were referring to as a "Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights." In their infinite wisdom, they announced what the legislation would require, but that it would not take place for nine months (NINE MONTHS!). So, of course, most credit card companies (translation= banks) have raised interest rates, lowered credit lines, changed to variable rates, etc. And, of course, because of the crazy manner in which our credit scores (such as FICO, etc.) are calculated, having reduced credit lines changes the ratio of debt to available credit, thus lowering credit scores. The lending institutions (translation= banks) then use that new score as one of their justifications for declining lending. Yet, our legislators have bailed out the "too big to fail" on the backs of the individual citizens!
The President continues to showcase high profile job summits, and give speeches about how essential job creation is. Then, on the other hand (or should I say "face"), he says that the government needs private industry to help take the lead, because the government can't do it alone! Isn't this a bit of revisionist history, when we consider that same argument could have been used regarding huge government infusions into big businesses, war efforts, etc.
And, what about our war efforts. The candidate Obama, at least partially, ran as the "peace" candidate, against the Iraq surge, and stating he would not have voted to go in when the first vote was taken (it's great when you're a candidate and you were not in the Senate and therefore did not vote at that time, under those conditions). Yet, now, President Obama wants to commit additional billions, as well as 30,000 - 35,000 US troops to an effort that could be referred to as a "surge" in Afghanistan, while at the same time promising to limit the amount of time troops will remain, giving the public the indication that substantial troop reductions would begin in July 2011 (18 months). Then on the following Sunday morning programs, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton strongly indicated that the 18 month period would be when the first of the troops would be withdrawn, and US troops could be there substantially longer. Defenders of increased military action and "surges" point to the success in Iraq, yet in the last few days, there have been substantial deaths due to bombings, etc. Does anyone really believe that when we eventually leave Iraq, that it will be a stable, sustainable nation? What is really our goal? Does anyone really have a plan? What do we expect to achieve?
The candidate Obama ran for President with the campaign slogan, "CHANGE." During President Obama's first ten and a half months in office, he is using economic advisors who were at least partially responsible for this mess in the first place (where's the change?), the same Secretary of Defense, his campaign opponent as Secretary of State, etc. To this observer, he seems to still be campaigning. Granted there is a need for communicating, but there is an even greater needed for real action that works!
We cannot just throw money at a problem, nor simply blame others for how we got there. We need some common sense and straight talk. It took the US a while to get into this mess, and it won't be overnight getting out of it. But the time for rhetoric is over! Let's create jobs now! Putting people back to work will be the fastest and most permanent cure for our economy. Provide incentive for employers to rehire. Provide even greater incentives for employers in "future growth" industries (such as alternative energy, gas exploration, etc., technology, and manufacturing)! Create a situation where the US becomes not solely a consumer-driven economy, but that we once again manufacture items here! Give companies an incentive to manufacture here instead of abroad! That would be monies well spent that would come back to the government in the form of taxes, less unemployment benefits payouts, etc.
Create something, and stop making excuses.
When Mr. Obama ran for office with the campaign promise of change, little did most of us realize that what he meant was that change would be the only thing left in our pockets. Let's get America working again, reducing our deficits so that our children and their children don't have to keep paying for our excesses, and regain the United States' dominance in the world economy.
How strange that while our economy has suffered, the an average price of a gallon of gas has increased by 50% since this time last year. And that is with reduced consumption! It's time for the American public to wake up, and demand that our politicians, once they are elected, act as statesman, instead of just continuing to be ruled by politics. Does it really make any sense that Democrats of Republicans keep voting as a bloc, regardless of the issue? The late Senator Charles Goodell summed up the situation, "Politicians are like antelopes. When things get tough, they pain their behinds white and run with the crowd."
The US public must demand leadership NOW!