Many consider our nation’s fiscal budgeting process severely flawed and feel the accumulating budget deficits imperil our future in any number of ways.

The political dialogue is generally around two opposing views: first, that more deficit spending will ease short-term pain, enabling the economy to recover, and second, the long view that policies that reduce spending would bring our fiscal house in order.

With this in mind, much is written about a “deadlocked” Congress as if this were something new in America. A deadlocked Congress, it is argued, obstructs the legislative process and is therefore a bad thing.

A reading of American history from 1775 to the present is instructive. Regional representation in Congress, the dynamic of political parties, with us since George Washington’s administration, the very definition of a republic, which establishes the states as a counterbalance to some of the risks inherent in a strong central government, tell us that things are playing out just as intended by our nation’s founders.

When Congress is deadlocked it is because “we the people” elected representatives with disparate views, sometimes enormously so.

In my view, what the founders intended was to institutionalize deadlock to reduce the risks of bad legislation.

How can anyone argue that the U.S. isn’t living beyond its means?

To me, the fight is on and “deadlock” is just what we needed. Want to break the deadlock? Look to the 2012 elections!

John L. Ross is a resident of Edgecomb.