Sir; ... You can sum up history any old which way if you care nothing for the truth. Part of our truth is the polarizing effect of our two parties which draw a line between left and right, good and bad, rich and poor, moral and immoral. Some of the jump to the deregulation of the economy was made on the strength of a purely moral, necessary, and essential effort for justice and equality between the races. I live in the North, in a union town, with a major universtiy in the city next door. But when I was young I saw the governor, George Wallace, and I looked at those hollering, working class men, shorted out of their sense of social superiority and I saw the Reagan Democrats of later years. Does anyone believe that government can do any moral right without the support of the people, or that it cannot do any moral wrong having the support of the people. If you do a good the working people must pay for they will hate you, and the working people pay for everything. The government will never be more moral than the people, and yet hopefully will be as moral. And the purpose of government is moral. There is nothing I can see in the stated purpose of our government in defense of the economy. The welfare of which it speaks is general... All the Aims of our government are moral. Where is the moral aim of our government ever cited in the crafting of law or in decisions of the high court? People do what they want to do at their own risk in government, counting on the experts and think tanks for spin and cover. Do you want to take us all to war? How can we stop you? But it better go well or we will call you on it...The aim of government is moral, and it is the mechanism of government that turns aside the moral purpose. Do you want to break the government to save an economy that the government has allowed to run hog wild until it has glutted itself nearly to death? You are not alone. The government will go against the will of the people out of the fear of the consequences of not going against that will. They have not considered the consequences. They are like a punch drunk fighter leaning away from a punch after he is hit only to lean into the next punch. Reality is coming at them too quickly to be avoided. Does it matter that congress is a deliberative body? They feel they must lead, when, to be fair, they should follow. The house, for example, should be larger and more numerous by many times. They wanted power. Any day now, they might wish to hide behind their want of power, and say: I have done as those who elected me ordered. Since they represent vast numbers in divided districts, the unity they could hide behind, no one can hide behind. So, if you get my point, government cannot do good unless a sizable group finds a benefit in it. As always, it is money as the equal of many votes, that gets and keeps the attention of government. It is wrong for government to try to do good without wide ranging support, or to do evil without wide ranging support. But it has all the authority it needs to not do wrong, and always. And it has the time, if it did not find time so essential to re-election, to actually anticipate problems and fix them before they become world shaking disasters. ...So long as any vote can be turned against any man don't expect anyone to take a stand. Of course, this would not be a problem if just one body, the house, represented small number of voters with large numbers of representative. Then each man would have the cover to do right, or do what he is told. That is, in other words, to have responsive government... If that is the real cure to our problems, to have government do the moral good for which it was constituted, then one must recapture the good parts of our former constitution, get rid of the parties, which act as another layer of government -and an impediment to change, and make government responsive by increasing the ratio of representatives to citizens. If democracy is denied so will virtue be denied. ...Thanks...Sweeney