Is this really starting over?

-A A +A

We must be really way behind, the way our pundits and politicians are always going on about needing to “start” doing stuff.  For instance, we’re told we have to “start” taking things seriously.  We have to “start” paying attention to our debt, the size of government and such.  On the other hand, we need to “start” to take care of our environment; stop wasting fuel  Then, there’s the wild cards who say we must “start” looking at things realistically, that it’s “time to start” figuring out ways to stop the growth of government and run-away debt.
Gee and I thought we were already doing this stuff.  I thought we “started” paying attention to debt when we “started” having budgets and I thought EPA was “started” way back in the 1970’s and I thought control of government was “started” with the constitution …
It’s not that I don’t agree that we need to do these things, but I guess I’m just kind of simple minded.  You see, I always thought you “started” something at the beginning.  I never realized it was when you change horses in midstream that you “start” something.
I do remember back when there was a “START” between the USA and the USSR.  It was a treaty that stood for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and concerned nuclear weapons and it was a kind of a first for atomic weaponry.  Guess that was a real “start” at the beginning.
However, all this stuff these people are espousing about “starting” today, well I kind of think if they would simply enforce what they already have on the books, that might be an interesting “start.”   You know, quit posturing to get the most attention on the 24-hours news machine and highest poll ratings with “new” approaches and “fresh starts.”  Hey if they maybe just ‘started” doing their job—they might just “start” to get things done.  That might be a “fresh beginning.”
Then again, maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe I better just “start” getting with the program, huh?
(Deborah Lucas Angel is a contributing writer for the Grant County News. She lives in Corinth.)