I spent five and one-half hours listening to the Bipartisan White House Summit. Republicans would like to pass a bill containing provisions on which there seem to be bipartisan agreement, and work on the remainder of the bill later. Other Republicans want to started over with a "blank sheet of paper."

Starting over, either way, would not cause Democrats and Republicans to change their minds about what each thinks, either philosophically or politically, should or should not be the final bill. If that were possible, compromises would have started at the summit.

Republicans continue to claim that they had no input into the formation of Senate and House bills. But the committees that furnished the basic ideas for the bills were composed of Democrats and Republicans. Most Democratic ideas likely did originate "behind closed doors." But Republican ideas did not originate on C-Span; they, too, communicated to other party members "behind closed doors." But Republicans are sure their base constituents will believe whatever they say, no matter how inconsistent, irrational or untrue.

As the President and Nancy Pelosi have pointed out, Republicans may not vote for the final bill despite many of their good ideas having already been incorporated into the proposed Democratic bill. The bill was already a bipartisan even before the President added even more Republican ideas after the summit. Republicans, however, are reluctant to take credit for their own ideas.

Bipartisanship does not mean a 50-50 agreement between the political parties, especially when one party has the presidency and substantial majorities in both houses of Congress. When the public option and single-payer were on the table, Republican said they were in agreement with eighty percent of the Democrats' bills but didn't like either of those ideas. Dropping them should have produced even greater agreement. But every time Democrats gave in on something, Republican refused to give in on anything. They only sought other concessions by Democrats.

The President had given Democrats and Republicans up to six weeks to work out a bipartisan piece of legislation or Democrats would have to proceed alone. There is still a chance, however, that one of the Republicans who believe the pending health-care bill will benefit the country more than will the status quo, Republicans who are not merely politicians but patriots, will after a drawing provide the 60th vote needed to prevent a filibuster.

In the absence of a bipartisan bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats are apparently willing to win with 51 votes. According to Republicans, such "reconciliation" was a good idea when George W. Bush and Republicans used it, but it has become "shoving down the throats" of Americans if used by Democrats.

Most Republican know that cutting a half trillion dollars worth of fraud and waste from Medicare cost is not the same as cutting that amount from necessary Medicare services. But Republicans say it in a way that makes seniors think one means the other. Deliberately misstating facts to confuse seniors is not the kind of character that should gain Republican congressional seats in November. How can having more deceivers fix broken government? Only a broken electorate would believe that.

Similar inconsistencies make doubling the budget deficit under Republicans in order to put money into the pockets of the wealthy all right, but temporarily doubling it under Democrats in order to bring the budget back into balance all wrong. Certainly putting money into the pockets of the wealthy did not achieve such a balance, neither did it prevent the depression that Democrats have so far averted.

Republicans claim they want health care dropped because want to save Democrats from landslide defeats in November. How touching that Republican want to enhance the electability of Democrats. If the bill is such a bad idea, wouldn't voters give Republican such a majority in the Senate and House that the bill could easily be repealed. But Republicans don't seem to want such a majority. And anything less likely would not survive a presidential veto.

Republicans say Obama should concentrate his attention on jobs, and not health care. The fact is, when he is concentrating on health care, he is concentrating on jobs. Whereas giving businesses tax breaks (the Republican way to more job) only serves to increase the national debt when businesses which have learned to make bigger profits with fewer workers merely add tax cuts to their bottom lines, there are other businesses that actually intend to begin hiring once health care is resolved.

Stalemate about health-care reform has raised the question: Is the government broken? If the government stays broken after November's election, a better question may be: Is the American electorate broken? If, as most Americans believe, Republicans are the reason why bipartisanship is not working, why would a rational electorate choose to increase gridlock by electing even more of them?

Polls on health-care reform contain snapshots of individual feelings about its effect on individuals and their families. The President and Congress, however, must lead by doing what they believe achieves the "greatest good for the greatest number of people." And they must seek it whether individuals realize what's best for them or not.

Ultimately, mending broken government must be a matter of changing political parties, not changing politicians. Voters must decide in November whom they will trust more: the present Democrats and Obama Administration, which headed off a national and possibly worldwide depression, or the Republicans they replaced, who almost caused one.

Ronald C. Spooner of Port Arthur is a retired educator. Contact his at rcspoon@earthlink.net.