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.