The Aug. 9 issue of the New Yorker magazine has an article titled, "The Empty Chamber," by George Packer. It asks the question, "Just how broken is the Senate?" After reading the article I am left with a similar question. Why would anyone want to send a senator (Republican or Democrat) back to a Senate that has increasingly become populated by "ideologues and charlatans"? Members of both parties regularly use the Senate's rules to tie up business for ideological reasons. The article says the last two bills (health care and financial regulation), which required a year and a half of legislative warfare, nearly destroyed the body.

When the Senate gets back to work it will be confronted with major legislation dealing with job creation, immigration, campaign finance, transportation security and scores of executive and judicial appointments. The current culture, which has lasted during the last eight years, together with Senate rules, has made this great deliberative body seem incapable of addressing legislation for the rest of this year or the next.

Which one of our two candidates is best suited to help the Senate conduct business like our founders intended?

Alden H. Laney

Salt Lake City