As Fatal Flaws Go, We've Got A Beaut.

       Do you know what a "fatal flaw" is? Charles Blow, in the New York Times this morning explained one when he suggested that Republicans in Congress seem to think the way things were two or three decades ago are so much better than any way they could be in the future. It seems that nothing can improve what we had 'back then' so let's get back to then, now.
       The problem is that things weren't all that great back then, but they could be much better now if only people would begin to try to work together. And let's not forget that Democrats are not without faults. While the Affordable Care Act is a good start, it isn't the panacea Democrats seem to think it is. And things certainly aren't all that much better than they were a few decades ago.
       Now I wouldn't expect the Republicans and Democrats in Congress and elsewhere to sit down around the old campfire and sing Kum be Yah. Nor do I expect that they will huddle around in a think-tank setting to come up with the kind of legislation we need for our country to succeed. Ya know, actually I do expect them to do just that. Not the Kum be Yah, but the think-tank and the kind of legislation we need. They won't, but that's what I expect of them. Conservatives and progressives have different ideas of the way things should be. Unfortunately neither way would work well on it's own, for everyone, but an amalgam of something between the two just might work out to be a great solution.
       So what are the chances of that happening? Well, that's the real fatal flaw in our world and in our country. Nobody trusts the other side enough to try it out. Everybody seems to hate the idea that the other side might have a better idea, and they hate it so much they aren't willing to try. I'll bet that if you put an ultra-conservative and an ultra-liberal in a room together, between the two of them they couldn't figure out how to get out of the room. Even if the door was left open. They'd be too busy accusing each other of getting themselves into this sorry fix.
       What if we had a law that stated that anyone elected to national office who could not agree to work together with the whole Congress to create fair and helpful laws within 30 days would be ushered out of office and not be allowed to run again for four years? But what Congressman would vote for such a law? I guess it would be fair to say Congress is a fatal flaw.

Win If You Win, Win If You Lose.

       I've talked about Farm Subsidies before, but this is about crop insurance. Now, I think crop insurance is a smart idea. It requires that farmers pay a premium for loss of crops because of weather. Then if they do lose their crops, they get paid by the insurance for the loss instead of experiencing catastrophic loss and the government stepping in after the fact like after hurricanes. This all sounds good, right? And it is, as far as it goes.
       The problem, though, and you know there's always a problem, is that when they get paid for their loss, farmers get repaid by the government, in other words taxpayers. But after all, food is too important to overlook. The thing is, however, that even if a farmer is in an area where they know they're going to be in a  severe drought, as long as he plants the seeds, he's gonna get paid by the insurance. So as far as the farmer is concerned, and the seed company, the insurance is a great deal.
       There's another kicker though. If the farmer plants his seeds, knowing they will die, he still gets paid, but he gets paid at the inflated price those crops would get  during the drought because of scarcity. So he gets a higher price, because if somehow he had been able to sell real product during the drought, he'd have reaped a larger than usual profit. This makes the farmer hope for dry years, or early frost to kill the crop. So farmers can actually make more if they lose their crop than if they harvest a good crop.
       I don't think that's what Congress had in mind when they passed the law. At least I hope Congress didn't have that in mind. Although given that a number of Congressmen own "working" farms, you never know. Now, if you don't believe in climate change, it's no big deal to you, but for the rest of the country, we could wind up paying these farmers and seed companies way too much money for doing pretty much nothing. I can see smart entrepreneurs buying fallow land in drought stricken areas and planting whatever seeds are most likely to fail as an investment.
       I guess the thing Congress should do is limit the consecutive years of drought it will pay for. Then stop the loophole that would allow phony farmers from taking part. Of course that's asking a lot of a Congress that has trouble agreeing on what day it is.

The Problem Is That Everybody Has A Different Idea.

       I'm trying to figure out how they think this will all work out. They say we need to reduce our deficit. They say we need to improve our economy. They say lower taxes is the first thing to do. They say we need to develop jobs. But everybody seems to have a different idea as to which is more important, here and now. And a different idea as to how to overcome each of those problems. Why, there are even folks who think that education is the most important concern.
       Of course when you look at each one, you find other folks who will explain why each one isn't the most important issue. Take education for instance. Some say we need to spend more on education, some tell you throwing more money at education won't improver the outcome. The retort is that less money certainly won't improve the outcome. A lot of states have decided to cut funding to education, presumably to see if it helps or hurts.
       But if you ask companies why they don't bring more jobs back, they'll tell you our workers aren't prepared to handle today's hi tech jobs. Now whether or not you agree with that, that's the answer you get from the companies with the jobs. Well, that and the taxes are too high. But after you look into it, you find most companies pay very little in taxes for one reason or another.
       So, in order to reduce the deficit, if you cut taxes, how do you pay down the deficit? With lower revenue? How do you improve the economy if jobs refuse to comer back. It makes sense to me to concentrate on education. If our workers were better able to handle the newer hi tech jobs, they'd make more, thereby providing more revenue, even with lower taxes. Of course just spending more on education really won't guarantee a better outcome. We have to be smarter about how we make our kids smarter.
       We need to stop teaching to tests and start teaching critical thinking, especially in math and science. Students need to learn how to think. For themselves. Multiple choice and true-false tests are too easy to guess at. It's time to make students think about a question. About how to answer it. How to communicate that they actually know what the question is asking and that they have figured out how to answer it. Because that's what job creators want from the people they hire. That's what will tell us how much to spend on education.

The A B Cs of Spying.

       Okay, here's where we're at. We've been spying on our enemies and our friends and everybody in between for years. In fact for decades, to varying degrees and with varying degrees of success. So have our enemies and friends and everybody in between been spying on us to varying degrees with varying degrees of success. That's really been what's called a secret everybody knows but nobody admits to. Everybody does it and nobody talks about it. Sortta like cheating on taxes.
       Then all of a sudden a couple of guys have spilled the beans. And now the French and Germans have to act shocked and displeased. And maybe they are, even though they know they do it themselves. Now it's time for us to act contrite. We're very sorry, we'll be more careful in the future. Of course it'll take time for the French and Germans to get over it, but they will. Especially if they get something juicy in the meantime.
       It's sortta much ado about little. When you spy on your friends, it's mostly to figure out how much they'll agree with what you want to do. Of course you don't hear anything from our enemies. They know we're spying. They're doing it to us. That's how they found out we were spying on them, a long time ago. Of course spying has gotten much more sophisticated, but that's progress.
       So what's all the hullabaloo? Well it's not about spying on other countries that has folks so upset. It's about spying on ourselves. That's what has folks upset.  And we've been upset since 2001. Ever since 9-11 and that awful day, our government has been doing everything it can to protect us from terrorists. The problem is that our government gave permission to our spies to spy on us, more and more every time we 've turned around. We knew they were listening in to our phone calls and computer emails, almost from the day after 9-11, or at least a short time later.
       Some folks haven't liked it at all, and some folks were satisfied that it was keeping us safe. Then those two guys started releasing secret information and people found out that all that spying was actually taking place. Well duh! They told you they were doing it. You apparently didn't believe them. It took two guys to make official secrets public for us to believe the government was spying on us. We would never believe the government because you can't trust anything politicians say. It's time for our government leaders to be contrite. To say they're sorry and that they'll be more careful in the future. Then they can get back to spying and we can get back to feeling safer. See how it all works out in  the end?
      

How Much Does That Burger Cost?

       Say, how are you enjoying those burgers and fries or pizza or fish or chicken or whatever? Taste great? Well, that's what fast food is all about, taste. So you should enjoy them and for a very good reason. You should enjoy them not only because they taste good, but because you paid for them. In fact you paid for them.... twice. Now why would I make a statement like that?
       Well for one thing, when you walk into your favorite local fast food vender, you belly up to the counter and place your order. The very next thing you do is pay for your fast food. Of course first you're asked if this is take out or eat in. Either way, when you're done, you leave. So how can I say you paid twice for that great tasting food? Is it because I think it's unhealthy? Hey, I don't care if it's unhealthy or not, and that doesn't enter into this conversation.
       So you're still wondering what I mean by saying you pay twice for your fast food. Well, have you ever noticed that not everybody behind the counter is some youngster? In fact, most fast food workers are adults or young adults. Either way, they're not making a living wage. And that means that they're not paying taxes because they don't make enough to put food on the table never mind pay taxes.
       All of which means you're subsidizing them. Yep, you're paying for their food stamps, rent supplement, free emergency room care or healthcare and other safety net assistance. Now you could run out and bad-mouth these folks for not paying their fair share, but just what would be the fair share of someone's income when they don't have any spare change left over after eating?
        Well, who's to blame then for your burger and fries costing you twice? Well, let me see.... If I didn't get paid enough to pay for these fancy frills like healthcare, food, a roof over my head and the like, the problem might be with the fact that I don't get paid enough. Didn't I just say that? Weren't you paying attention?
       Now I realize you don't want to pay any more for that tasty burger, but is that a sound reason for not getting paid enough to live on? Maybe a spot under a nearby bridge would suffice as housing. Then the garbage cans could supply food for the makeshift table. I guess anything is possible in the search for cheap tasty fast food. It may be okay for you, but what about the other guy?

It's All About Afrikaners.

       Once upon a time in the country of the Union of South Africa, there was a group of folk of European heritage who ruled the country completely. Even though these White folk were not native Africans, they alone had the rights of citizenship such as voting or holding office. Blacks who had lived in South Africa since the beginning of time still were not allowed to vote or hold office or live in White districts or even own land. These White people were called Afrikaners. Then one day it all changed and Black people were allowed to vote and own land and hold office. And South Africa didn't even come to an end. The country still exists.
       Now, in America we have a group of White people who believe that America is or should be only for people just like them. People who look just like them and think like them and no Hispanics or Blacks should be allowed to vote or become citizens. These folks like to be called Tea Partiers, but are really Amerikaners. It's actually a disservice to true Tea Party ideals. If you stood these Amerikaners side by side with the Afrikaners of old, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. Not the way they look or in the way they think. There is virtually no difference between them.
       It's not really racism, they'll be the first to tell you they are not racist, and they really do believe that. They just think that America was set aside for the Whites and more specifically the ultra-conservative Whites and they are terrified of the changes they see coming in the makeup of our America.  So they have picked up the playbook of the Afrikaners and have added even more tricks to discourage the unwanted from voting or becoming citizens.
       The problem for these Amerikaners is that they started about a hundred and fifty years too late. America is changing and there just isn't any stopping it. Maybe in the short term these Amerikaners will enjoy some successes, but in the long term, change is coming. Get used to it. Even enjoy it. Because it's good for all of America, even Amerikaners.
   

What's Happening in Argentina These Days?

       In some parts of Argentina, that's in South America next to Brazil, there are some sections of the country where cancer rates have quadrupled and some where birth defects have also quadrupled. Many are in the same sections of the country. Coincidentally, a few other changes are taking place in those regions. Previously they had a crop rotation from grain growing to beef raising every five years. Now they are almost exclusively grain growing.
       The cattle to grain changes, every five years, kept the weeds and insects in check naturally. But now the changes require heavy use of insecticides and herbicides. The use of insecticides increased from 4000 in 1995 to 30,000 metric tons in 2007, and herbicides from 20,000 tons in 1993 to 220,000 in 2011.
       Now far be it from me to suggest any correlation between cause and effect. The chemists will tell you their products don't cause cancer or birth defects. Any increase in either must be from some other source. They claim that, but if you look at the charts and maps, it's pretty hard to miss the coincidents. If your foot suddenly starts to hurt, and when you look down to find someone has just stepped on it, you might assume that to be the cause of the pain. You'd be right.
       But of course this is all about Argentina, not good the ole US of A. That's true, but at the same time, our giant farms of the Midwest, and west, and south, and east and north. are now using the same insecticides and herbicides. It just might be a good idea for our government to keep track of what brands and formula's are being used and track them against illnesses and  birth defects being experienced in those regions of America. That is if government is allowed to do that sort of thing.
       Being allowed to do that sort of thing depends on how much money is spent to stop government, and who's paying and receiving that money. If you watch legislation on the subject that's being proposed, and by whom, and then who works hardest to stop that legislation, you'll begin to get an idea of who's being paid and by whom. Just remember this; sometimes a little bigger government can save your life.

What's New In The News?

       I assume you've heard of California. It's that state taking up half of our west coast. Well, they've instituted some changes in the way they govern. Not that California making changes is unusual. They've been doing that for years. But this time it's a little more drastic and it's proving a little bit, or maybe a whole lot better.The first time in who knows how long that partisan gridlock is lessening.
       Are you listening Washington? California did a couple of things that has changed everything. This should even please my cousin who moved out of California because he was fed up with it. First they redrew all their electoral districts by a completely non-partisan commission. With no input from the state legislature. Now there will be very few completely safe districts for candidates.
       Next they changed primary elections to a completely non-partisan primary where the top two vote getters regardless of the candidates' party affiliations, move on to the general election. Yep, the two candidates that most people prefer go against each other in the general election. That way you will finally end up with the person most people want. Nobody can sneak in because of a fluke.
       Most Californians are quite happy with these changes. Of course there are some folks who are very unhappy with the changes. Mostly people who want stronger political parties and who prefer gridlock. Fortunately, in California, they're in the minority. Now you're beginning to see Republicans and Democrats working together to pass laws, or even to defeat legislation they would have forced through in the past in order to satisfy their party base.
       I suppose it's not perfect, very few things are but, boy oh boy, what a start. Can you imagine a federal government actually working together, for the good of the people, instead of the good of the party ideology? You don't suppose these kinds of changes would help Washington, do you? I wonder how many heart attacks we'd see by people like party bosses and party fundraisers? I know, I know, folks like the Tea Party would hate such changes because extreme rhetoric or policy would get you nowhere, unlike nowadays.

Election Year News Flash.

       Well, here we are folks, we're right down to the wire. For today's news audio we have excerpts of Republican nominee, Senator Ted Cruz's stump speech. "It has been said and I now ask you, did Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton actually come from Mars? Does she hide her green color with a lot of makeup? I'm not saying it's true, I'm merely asking, is it true? And my opponent's ridiculous suggestion that I constantly use innuendo is just another of her fiendish attacks against my good name. Is it possible that the sightings of UFOs dating back to the time of her birth, an indication that those flying saucers were actually bringing her egg here? I'm simply asking. And did those aliens actually land and plant the announcements of her birth? Again, I'm just asking. But could all these convenient coincidences have just remarkably happened, with all the stars aligned as never before, or is she an alien from Mars? I'm not saying it's so, I'm just asking. And again, let me reiterate, I do not use the tactic of innuendo."
       Now we here from Secretary Hillary Clinton in her stump speech. "The man is nuts. Thank you very much. Now are there any questions? Yes. I have said that my nutty opponent is nuts. I've also said he specializes in innuendo. I've also stated that he single-handedly caused the government shutdown and credit default which started in October of 2013 and is still going three years later now in October 2016. You notice he hasn't denied that. The man is certified nuts."
       Oh wait. Audience we have Sen. Cruz on live hookup. "These suggestions that I use innuendo, I must say, it's been said, and I ask you now, is it not Hillary that is the one to use innuendo? And as for the government shutdown and credit default, I submit this was just another part or her fiendish scheme to get elected? I'm not saying it's so, I'm just submitting. Is it possible she has caused all this pain to Americans simply to bring more attention to herself?"
       I'm told that Secretary Clinton has a response to these allegations. "He's nuts, period."
       Well, there you have it listeners. With only days to go before the presidential election, both candidates have sharp words for each other. And with Secretary Clinton leading in the polls by double digits, it's simply too close to call.

Oh Boy. Do We Have Problems.

       Ya want a good laugh? Listen to people place blame for the government shutdown and upcoming debt ceiling crisis. On the one hand you've got Conservatives, Republicans and Tea Partiers pointing fingers at a weak President unwilling or unable to govern, and unresponsive Democratic Senators for not doing their jobs while Americans suffer.
       On the other hand, you've got Liberals, Progressives and Democrats asking why the House Republicans and especially John Boehner won't put forward a clean bill to reopen the government and remove the  obstacles to a debt ceiling increase without  repealing Obamacare. It's simple, they say, the ACA has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. It's the law. Live with it. Put the country back to work and then negotiate. All this while Americans suffer.
       Both sides have legitimate points, and both sides overlook their own deficiencies, but to hear each side, theirs is the only fair game in town. The one side says if they can't have Obamacare brought down, then lets cut much of the entitlements. Or even better, let's do both. The other side says they're in the right because nobody wants the entitlements cut or Obamacare defunded.
       It's a real dilemma. On the one hand, the debt ceiling they're all talking about is for bills on stuff they already spent. So, do we pay our bills or do we become a deadbeat nation? On the other hand our debt is out of hand. The cuts being proposed only cut the deficit. The monthly bills for our debt. The debt keeps increasing.
       Look at it this way, if we stopped paying all entitlements from today on, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and all the safety-net programs, we'd begin to pay off our debt, if slowly. Unfortunately an extremely large segment of our population would begin to starve to death. Maybe as much as forty percent of the population. That's because about half the small businesses in the country would go belly up before we could make a serious dent in the debt. And then most of the other businesses in the country would close their doors. Which means we'd have about fifty to sixty percent unemployment. That's if major the corporations don't do the same.
       On the other hand we could cut our defense budget in half and still have the largest military in the world. Which would begin to lower our debt also. But then countries who are our enemies or wannabees would begin to get ideas about attacking us, or at least more ideas than now.
       The point to all this is that we already have more than enough problems without Congress causing us these extra problems.

The EVEN GREATER DEPRESSION Comntinues.

       Down here in Bucksnort, Tennessee, my friends have all been heating their homes with swamp gas. When the coal, oil and electricity gave out back in 2014, swamp gas was the only source of energy left. Not even the farm hands had any energy left to do their chores. Food is scarce, except for the occasional muskrat or possum and once in a while somebody shoots a bear. But in the winter, folks can always count on having a tall glass of ice water. Come Summer, good warm water will be available, so ya see, we still have our choices.
       The problems came about as a result of the fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and most specifically, the fourth section of the amendment. which clearly stated that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned." Now it says more than that, but that's the part that covers our debts. But since Congress decided to ignore the Constitution and go ahead and ignore it's debts as well, we now find ourselves in the uncomfortable position in this the 2016th year of our lord of being broke.
       That means, not only are we broke, but we can't borrow any money to keep our ships and planes working. So now the Banana Republic of America, as folks have come to call it, is left to fend for itself. Now that's fine for us country folk who can find those possums and bears, but them city people, why they're in a lot of hot water, at least in the summer. Country people can find pretty much what ever they need to survive. Except maybe manufactured things like trucks and truck parts. That's because most of that manufacturing went over the sea years ago. Now we don't have any credit in those countries, so we can't buy what they make.
       Of course even if we had credit we probably couldn't buy anything because those countries crashed just like us and now they don't make anything either. A course they got it worse than us because they got fewer woodlands where bear and possum can grow. Now back to the city folk, they have started boiling furniture, like chairs and couches, to make soup. After all, there's not much need for couches anymore. Nosireebob,  you won't find any couch taiters in the cities anymore a cause there ain't no TV to watch nowadays.

The EVEN GREATER DEPRESSION.

       The year is 2016 and we've been in the Even Greater Depression for thirty six months now and counting. Next month we will elect a new president. It will be a momentous occasion, even though there is only one person running for the office. Joe, The Electrician, agreed to run for the office when he was the last person in America to have a job. But as soon as he agreed to run, he lost his job.
       All work is now done by volunteers. So we continue to have electricity because a group of politicians decided that if they were ever again to be able to give a speech on a lighted stage with sound, it would have to be them to restart the generators. After the great electrical fire of January 1, 2014, which followed the great restart of electricity be two hours, the people of America decided we needed individuals who knew what they were doing and why, to run the really important industries. Ever since then, politicians could be found at county courthouses around the country selling pencils out of tin cups on the entrance steps.
       It's been interesting to watch how different politicians proclaim their pencils as being the best pencils to do the job of writing down information of extreme importance. But even more entertaining is to listen to them explain why their competitors pencils will only get the information wrong and cause the whole country to fall into a great national disaster.
       I spoke to a gentleman just yesterday who had actually rode a camel to Washington to speak to the President and his Congressman and Senators. When he got there he was struck by the fact that these men were still sitting in their same chairs listening to a Senator read bedtime stories to the congressional staffers who had left the building three years earlier. Nobody was available to speak with my friend at the present time because of other important duties, except for one volunteer janitor. The janitor told my friend that these folks had been sitting in the same chairs so long staring at this great orator that they were no longer able to speak or hear anything. But whatever they did hear must have mesmerized them.
       Meanwhile back here in East Plowshare, Arkansas, life goes on. Now stay tuned for the next chapter of a great American during the Even Greater Depression.

Minority Rule Is The Answer.

       Here's a question I can't quite figure out. Why do the federal Election Commission and the Supreme Court both equate free speech with money? How does money provide the right to free speech? Does one million dollars provide more free speech that ten dollars? Should it be allowed to provide more free speech? Does it buy more influence?
       The law stipulates one man, one vote. That's fine, but it doesn't stipulate one free speech for one man. That's silly. Candidates would be limited  to one speech too. Come to think of it, that might be a real blessing. But maybe there should be a price set on a free speech. Say $2600. Come to think of it there is such a law. But then that law was made meaningless by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United, allowing corporations and the wealthy to give any amount they want to PACs. Does anyone think that a million dollar donation to a candidate's favorite PAC would be less influential than a direct donation to that candidate?
       So if exceptionally large donations to PACs by corporations are potentially more influential than a private citizen's $2600 or $10, is that fair? The only disadvantage to the corporation is that as a 'person' it can't vote as many times as it wants. After all, it can give as much money as it wants, why shouldn't it be allowed to vote as many times as it wants? Gosh, it can't vote at all. You don't suppose that allowing corporations to donate all they want is compensation for not being allowed to vote at all, do you?
       I understand the problem with the Federal Election Commission. It's made up of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. There's no majority or minority. There's no benefit to any member in rocking the boat. But the Supreme Court has no fear. They can't be replaced easily and there is a majority and minority. That's how we got into such a mess in this country in the first place. Maybe Congress has the right idea after all. Minority rules.

  

Talk About Quick-Change Artists.

       Okay, now I'm really getting confused. the whole reason for shutting down the government was to repeal or, mainly, to defund Obamacare. I thought it was a terrible reason, but at least I understood what they were trying to do. I vehemently disagreed, but I understood. I think shutting down the government because you can't get your way is really childish. I also believe it would have undercut our entire system of governing, right back to our founding fathers.
       Now I find out that defunding Obamacare is no longer the reason for the shutdown. How can this be? Just yesterday it was the whole reason, now it's not any part of the reason. Well, it seems that leaders of the shutdown gang were beginning to find out that the shutdown to defund Obamacare was unpopular with the electorate. Big time! The leaders were flabbergasted to say the least. After all, they had had no idea such a backlash could happen. After all they had only been told by everybody with any memory beyond even a week ago there would be a backlash.
       So they quickly whispered a new strategy for this week. Now they will convert the Obamacare shutdown  into the benefits programs shutdown. Surely this will endear them into the hearts of the millions upon millions of Americans who depend on help to get by on the low wages they are stuck with. The new strategy includes offering funding for a few items of the budget they know will find favor with everyone, but carefully evades any funding for everything they have never liked. They now call these proposals negotiating. The plan seems to be to get everything they want that they think the other side will accept passed and then claim they negotiated. Then they'll claim that since they negotiated, they won't have to give up any more.
       It's a clever strategy for a first graders, but usually by second grade everyone can see through the perfidy. Ya see, there is no intention on the part of the shutdown gang to negotiate. Their only goal is to get the other side to negotiate away everything, without them having to give up anything whatsoever themselves. They think this idea will work because they think the American people are just a bunch of dolts. Well? Are we?

Our Generous Legislators.

       Have you noticed how a fair number of Congressmen and Senators are giving up their salaries or donating them to charity while the government is shut down? Of course they're not doing it in privacy, but rather are being very public about it. Now I don't blame them for letting people know that our legislators in Washington "feel the peoples pain." Of course if they just say they aren't accepting the pay checks, then as soon as the shutdown ends, they'll get all that back pay, with interest. So really it's a hollow offer. Now if it goes to a charity, then it's gone, but they do get that tax deduction. Which will be substantial.
       All that is nice of them, but consider, they are the problem and only they can solve the problem and they can do that fairly easily by simply agreeing with each other and stop demanding something the other side will not and should not ever say yes to under these conditions. Now, why do I say that? Well, if our government accepts the idea that it's okay to hold hostage the American people to force the "other party" to accept some piece of legislation or some add-on to any legislation or suffer a catastrophic outcome for not knuckling under, then we would be headed for an eventual catastrophe for sure.
       No, the real problem is not that some folks are giving their pay away, and some folks are not giving their pay away, the problem is that they should all be receiving their pay because they're all doing the jobs they were hired to do. In other words, legislate, don't obfuscate. See, that's what they're not doing. In stead of legislating, which is what they were elected  to do, they're arguing over ideology. Ideology is a great subject to discuss and even argue about in a think-tank setting or between two teams of debaters. But in a setting that can't harm anyone. That's not what our legislators are doing. They've forgotten why they serve and who they serve. A long time ago.
       What's needed is a gentle reminder. If that doesn't work in short order, then we need to firmly but figuratively give them a swift kick in the pants. They work for you and I. They need to act that way.

Why Would They Do This?

       Okay, how is it that many members of Congress want to cut back on the benefits paid to the unemployed, but manage to shut down the government thereby throwing many more onto the unemployed roles? And why is it that the reason for shutting down the government is because they want to either defund or repeal the Affordable Care Act? If you vote forty three times (and counting) to repeal or defund the ACA, and every time you do, it's defeated in the Senate, don't you think it's time to learn that your wishes don't mesh with the majority? Shouldn't you begin to try to make changes to the law rather than keep wasting time on a ritual that can't work?
       I understand that many people just don't believe this plan will work or at least won't work well. I also understand that there are some who think it will work and that somehow that will hurt their party. I also understand that some folks just don't like it because of a President they don't like, don't think is an American and don't think his kind should be in the White House. I understand there are people like that, I just don't understand why.
       Here's something else I don't understand. I don't understand why these folks would try a tactic that was tried before and did the exact opposite of what they wanted to happen. Seventeen years ago, a government shutdown was tried and the party that pushed it to happen is the party that suffered most for doing it, in the next few elections. If you make a mistake once and don't learn from it, why would you expect a different outcome this time?
      Perhaps the thinking is that with enough money thrown at the electorate, shutting down the government can be turned into an asset. And I believe that's quite possible, presuming the other side doesn't throw just as much money right back at the initiators. But why would any group think they're the only ones with money to spend on this? Unless there are just enough people involved who actually want to see the end of government as we know it. Now in some cases I'd agree that's a good idea. Until I think about the consequences. Then I don't like the idea much at all.
      

I'll Break Your Law If You'll Break Mine.

       Henry Aaron had a very interesting article in the New York Times yesterday. President Obama, or for that matter, any President faced with a debt ceiling crisis will break a law, no matter what he does or doesn't do. The article is titled 'Our Outlaw President'.
       Now class, here's the problem President Obama faces. The Constitution requires that he spend what Congress requires him to spend, raise only those taxes Congress has authorized him to impose and borrow no more than Congress authorizes. That's all pretty clear. It's the law of the land.
       So for those who really, really dislike President Obama, they will soon have him in a position of defying the Constitution no matter what he does. If he cuts spending without both houses of Congress agreeing, he breaks the law. If he raises taxes not approved by both houses, he breaks the law and if he ignores the debt ceiling imposed by the last Congress and borrows enough to meet our country's responsibilities he again would break the law.
       Now any one of those choices might be okay with you or might be cause to impeach him, in your opinion, but such a condition couldn't possibly stand the review of the Supreme Court, could it? One way or another, if we reach that point, he's going to have to decide to break one of those laws. And any way you slice it, some folks are gonna scream foul.
       So here's the problem. Fewer than one third of one of the two houses of Congress, in fact only one person in that house, which is only one half of one third of the federal government can place the presidency of the United States in the position of having no choice but to break the law. That could not possibly have been the intent of the authors of the Constitution.
       It seems to me that the President should petition the Supreme Court to make a decision as to which of the three laws should be repealed or invalidated, either temporarily or, preferably, permanently. Personally, I think that if the President must disobey one law, it should be to ignore the debt ceiling. That's because the Congress decided that question when they passed the spending bills. But why is it that one member of the House of Representatives, the speaker, can hold the entire country hostage should he or she decide to do so? The same question can be asked of the filibuster and/or the majority leader in the Senate.

Government Shutdowns, Debt Ceilings, Obamacare?

       News Flash: As of 12:01 last night the government has been shut down. Although it's cloudy this morning, the sun did rise. It's also important to note that my electric clock is still working. So what's the big deal? Well of course there are loads of people who were basically laid off, like nearly a million federal workers and a lot of employees of federal contractors. If you need any government services, you should crawl back into bed and set your clock for the reopening.
       In a few weeks though, there will be the Debt Ceiling talks. When that happens, the clocks will still work and the sun will still shine. Ya see, there's always a little squirming space built into these Washington crises. The idea is to make everyone on the other side too nervous to wait. But if there's no real danger, why is this happening? Both sides are jockeying for position. Nobody's gonna intentionally destroy America. Well except for maybe a few.
       Ya see, the whole point of these manufactured exercises in brinkmanship is to position each party for the next election cycle.  Unlike motorcycles, these election cycles are when we get to vote to elect the folks who will represent us, or more correctly, to misrepresent us, in Washington. So while politicians, media newscasters and political science majors like to call them election cycles, they're really just elections.
       The idea is to make the other side look bad enough so that you'll remember not to vote for them next year. So ya see, it's all just an elaborate scheme to scare you into voting for their guy or at least not voting for the other guy. Now usually this takes place a little closer to an election, but the opportunity was just too ripe to pass up. What with a near total lack of funding for government and a debt ceiling coming up for votes so close together, nobody in Washington wanted to pass up such a great opportunity. Let's face it, when the stars are aligned so perfectly, you've got to act or not.
       I know, I know, you're asking what's all this about Obamacare and what do these other things have to do with the Affordable Care Act? Well, of course, none of these manufactured crises and Obamacare have anything to do with each other. Except that some folks hate the idea of universal healthcare coverage, some folks don't think this particular coverage will work, some folks just hate the president and some folks like this law. But it is the law.