The agreement ending the recent government shutdown included a provision that a conference committee will meet to work out a budget, based on the differing budget bills passed in each of the houses of Congress. This is the process described in the Constitution, which differs from the recent practice of passing continuing resolutions that just extend an old budget bill.
This House/Senate committee should produce a bill that works to satisfy the citizens' needs and concerns (national debt, economic growth, individual liberties, etc., etc., etc.). This important budget bill will then be voted upon by the entire Congress, including our representative in the House, Tim Huelskamp.
Tim's voting history and public pronouncements tell us that no budget will be austere enough, no budget will cut your Social Security enough, no budget will close national monuments enough. His input will be neither sought nor considered, because everyone knows Congressman Huelskamp will vote "no." That means we, the voters of the First District of Kansas, will not be represented in this budget process; just as we are no longer represented in the House Agriculture Committee.
We don't like it when drug peddlers are in the sheriff's office, we would not want an arsonist running the fire department, and we would not select an atheist to be our parish priest. So why did we elect a person who dislikes government and is a person who believes the "government is the problem?" Should we be surprised that Washington has problems when we sent a government-hater to help run the place?
Let's send someone who believes government can work for us and will endeavor to make sure government will work for us -- as opposed to sending someone who believes in obstruction, destruction and vandalism.