Need changes in Congress

Having watched the conventions, I’ve reached the conclusion that while the individual in the White House is important, we must also watch who controls the Congress. The current Congress is more concerned with party purity than governance. Jeff Ellingson’s Sept. 4 letter shows the true allegiances of regional incumbents. It appears these “representatives” have greater loyalty to an unelected power broker than they do to the people that elected them.

The names of some regional congressional incumbents, all Republicans, are: Washington: Reps. Jaime Herrera, Doc Hastings, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Dave Reichert. In Idaho: Sens. Mike Crapo and …

Having watched the conventions, I’ve reached the conclusion that while the individual in the White House is important, we must also watch who controls the Congress. The current Congress is more concerned with party purity than governance. Jeff Ellingson’s Sept. 4 letter shows the true allegiances of regional incumbents. It appears these “representatives” have greater loyalty to an unelected power broker than they do to the people that elected them.

The names of some regional congressional incumbents, all Republicans, are: Washington: Reps. Jaime Herrera, Doc Hastings, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Dave Reichert. In Idaho: Sens. Mike Crapo and James Risch, and Reps. Raul Labrador and Michael Simpson. And in Montana: Dennis Rehberg. All of them have signed a pledge that they will never vote in favor of tax increases.

This flies in the face of logic. If we are ever to get the economy moving at a pace faster than a crawl, we need big programs. The Great Depression ended only with a combination of governmental programs and the boom in manufacturing that came as we entered World War II.

I would suggest that we make major changes in Congress if we are ever going to go move forward.

Gil Beyer

Sandpoint