Not too many years ago, I took a job in an rather dysfunctional office environment. While there was nothing wrong with the office itself or the place in which it was located, one couldn't help but notice over time that there was something disturbing about this sanctuary of industry. Try as I might however, I could put no finger on what about this isle of employment that was so unsettling. No matter who was in charge of it (and that was an ever-changing array of characters) or which employees came or went; there were still far too many incidents of embarrassingly disconcerting behavior, annoying inter-personal conflict, and incomprehensible temper tantrums; episodes which occasionally even rose to the level of infectious mental meltdown.
One day as the Christmas season approached however, and while someone in the office discussed the week's prime time holiday TV schedule, a singular point of clarity shook me to my very foundations. I suddenly found myself flashing back to the days of my youth and my introduction to a 1964 made-for-TV movie entitled "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer". It wasn't the title character whose luminous snout lent this tawdry offering its title; nor even Hermey, a rather strange little elf who wanted to be a dentist that struck a disconcerting chord with me however. It was instead "The Island of Misfit Toys", that was discovered by Rudolph and his gang of intrepid wanderers in their travels.
This island, for those of you who have somehow missed this quirky claymation classic, is a place full of wagons with square wheels, planes that can't fly, and even a 'Charlie-In-The-Box' (instead of a Jack). In other words, it was an Island of mutant toys that even the X-men probably couldn't love. It was also apparently, a place into which I had fit into rather handily for some time ... a fact that looking back on it now, I find strangely demoralizing.
As I also now look back on the recent made-for-cable-news dramas of the 'partial shutdown' of non-essential federal employees that occurred because once again Congress ignored its fiduciary responsibilities in passing an annual budget; I cannot help but wonder at the comparison. As I contemplate the 'imminent default' on a national debt that can only occur when these same 'Chicken Littles' threaten us with dire consequences by discussing a failure to pay the interest on debt that they incurred if not allowed to raise the credit limit on the national credit card; I cannot help but be struck by the overwhelming similarities between the cartoon misfit location and Washington DC.
Think about it. Isn't there something slightly physically off-putting in the appearance of many of these public servants to start with? Without commenting on the attractiveness of their politics, it's certainly not difficult to face the concept that neither Harry Reid nor Nancy Pelosi is likely to win the 'Sexiest Legislator Alive' in People magazine (even the forthcoming 'Extra-special Halloween Zombie Edition). As for John Boehner and Mitch McConnell; they too capture the sometimes unattractive spirit of this costumed season by looking more like professional undertakers than senior statesmen. As for the guy in the White House, one cannot help but notice the eerie (eary?) resemblance to a certain famous Disney character made famous in a 1941 animated feature (or the polka dot version depicted on the Island in Rudolph).
As for those from either side of the aisle whose physical appearance is slightly more appealing (if not downright photogenic), isn't there an unhealthy aroma of zealotry that instead often permeates the room around them, tainting their efforts with something that's more felt than seen? It's so pervasive that one cannot help but wonder in many of these cases whether a 'Dorian Gray' style portrait might be tucked away in an upstairs room of their ancestral homes, and whose appearance now carries the sins and scars of their misfit nature (political and otherwise).
Even if taken at their most appealing however, all these political misfits are people who have sought a career in the exercise of power over their fellow man. Regardless of the humility and altruism with which they may have entered the fray, or any misguided attempts to retain them; the modern day game of party politics requires participants a lifetime of self-serving and self-interest in order to lay claim to one's place on this island elitism. And once having achieved a true misfit level of pompous legislative nobility, few have the strength of character to resign their positions of power until unavoidable senility of Island life, revelation of unforgivable public error, or a decision of overwhelming political disfavor to overtake them.
No, there's little doubt that over the years, Washington DC has become little more than a government incarnation of this imaginary place that in its reality should be called the 'Island of Misfit Politicians' (a term which is probably in fact redundant). Far different from the sad place of unloved toys of Rudolph's adventure however, these misfits see themselves as well-loved indeed (or at least self-loved) and seek anything but freedom from their sordid island retreat. Appearing to all but revel in their misfit status and nature, they do all they can to stake whatever greedy claim they can to even the meanest plot on its shores; and instead fight to the death to retain the power and privilege of their misfit island paradise.
Unlike Rudolph's long ago adventure, I suspect perhaps that far it's too late to rescue any of these misguided misfits and see them off to good homes, should they even allow us the opportunity to do so. So since we cannot rescue them, perhaps it's past time that we sought to rescue ourselves from them instead. The continuous exhibition of their misfit nature is tainting even the land around them, and all but unfit to live in. (Where's the EPA when you need them?)
Before we create the next Island of Misfit Politicians however, we should consider changing the rules to save them from their own misfit nature. For their own good (and that of the nation), let's limit their time as misfits, their exposure to the toxicity of the Island, and return them to society in general; where with luck, there may yet be hope of them fulfilling a less misfit existence.
I am traveling this weekend and therefore submitting my weekend post before I depart. Sorry, no apologies for any apparent silliness involved with this early submission since it could be said to compensate for last weekend's late 'Silly Bits' entry. On the other hand, one should probably write off any consideration of timing as simply more silliness.
Silliness is not terribly surprising, considering what's going on where the Debt Ceiling and Government Shutdown are concerned. Many are beginning to look at this as the 'Silly Season' here in the US. Not to be outdone however, parts of the rest of the world occasionally insist on trying to compete (mostly unsuccessfully) with the pace of silliness that 'The Land of the Free' and 'The Home of the Brave' is trying to set. Our first entry in this latest edition is just such an example.
In Oslo, Norway, the announcement awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize was made today. While a Pakistani schoolgirl, a Congolese doctor, and a US traitor were among those who successfully got through the talent competition and made the finalists; the winner of the Peace Prize begun by Alfred Nobel (the guy who invented dynamite) is in fact not a person this year at all, but an organization. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will receive this year's gold medal and $1.25 million cash award. (Sorry, there's no sash or tiara; but thank goodness, no swimsuit competition either.)
For those of you who've never heard of the OPCW, don't feel bad. Most of the world hasn't either. These are the guys however, who will be responsible for disposing of the chemical weapons in Syria at some point, though they haven't done anything but look around so far. By now, some of you might be wondering how they could get the prize for something they haven't actually done yet. You're probably the same ones who applauded the Nobel Committee for awarding it to Barack Obama back in 2009 before having actually done anything as President (even announcing his 'Peace Through Drone Strikes' foreign policy). This is also the same prize awarded to Al Gore in 2007 for his efforts with regard to climate change. Can somebody refresh my memory here? Was his award for generating awareness of the problem or the massive carbon footprint created in his awareness efforts. (Maybe the Nobel Committee just has a problem with this award in odd-numbered years.)
Locally, the latest Shutdown brouhaha was the Defense Department's announcement earlier this week that it wasn't going to pay survivor benefits immediately to families of soldiers killed in action overseas. Not only would this failure of payment create a hardship for families attempting to meet their loved ones at Dover Air Force Base as the remains were returned for burial, but it would force them to cover the funeral expenses themselves until the shutdown had ended (and they call Republicans heartless).
The Defense Department, showing a level of sensitivity that only a government agency can (and eerily reminiscent of the IRS), justified their actions by saying that they warned everyone that these 'non-essential' expenses would result from government shutdown. And all of this in spite of the fact that both Houses of Congress had passed the 'Pay Our Military Act' to fund the military that the President subsequently signed into law. Evidently however, Executive Branch attorneys in consultation with each other felt differently, and that same Defense Department didn't see fit to pass on to Congressional oversight committees (or apparently much of anyone else except some 'unnamed White House personnel') that this obviously misnamed bill still didn't cover what the legislators who wrote it thought it did.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney showed more of his own sensitive nature by attempting to politically justify this horrifying insult to the families of those who've made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. These offensive and non-responsive comments were to the effect that this wouldn't be a problem if Republicans would just shut down the shutdown.
In a related story, Congress yesterday apparently fixed the hole in their earlier fix where military death benefits were concerned. In the meanwhile however, Senator Joe Manchin of Virginia had apparently brokered a deal with Ken Fisher's Maryland-based 'Fisher House Foundation' to step in and cover the costs for these military benefits to the families involved for the government until they could step in once again. Thursday Press Secretary Jay Carney, not satisfied with previous structural damage to the situation that he'd already done, stated that now a legislative solution was unnecessary since the Defense Department struck a deal with the Fisher House (though not giving credit to the Senator who had actually brokered the deal that the White House was taking credit for).
Two things to consider here:
- Wasn't this the same White House that a while back was looking to eliminate the tax deductions for charitable contributions in order to raise general revenues? Weren't we told that all things were to be done by government, and that such contributions and organizations were all but unnecessary? You know, there's a certain consistent inconsistency to the concept of borrowing money from those whose funding you wanted to make harder to obtain in order to make up for your own funding failures. Perhaps the next step should be instead to make them 'too big to fail'.
- Speaking of the Fisher House Foundation and this loan, since where does the Defense Department or the White House (the branch of government that controls it), get the authority to borrow money (especially from a private concern)? Incurring debt is the exclusive province of the Congress under Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. Therefore entering into even an informal agreement with the Fisher House, regardless of the altruistic nature of the effort, was and is entirely unconstitutional.
Have a silly week....
In spite of the fact that I seem to be contributing in no substantive way to the number of awards one by the Toledo Free Press, Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller continues to accept my submissions. (We all have blind spots)
Who am I however, to question the judgment of this award winning publication by second guessing their use of "Sequestered, Shutdown, and Debt Limited" this week; while we gear up for the next national financial battle over the Debt Limit even before the previous one over the Shutdown is over.
The truth however is that this is the endless drama in Washington DC has become a dysfunctional reality show, and there's no understanding any of it. There's no watching any of it either; as their lack of plot, poor dialogue, and even worse acting make "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" a welcome relief. (Man, I really hate Reality Shows.)
Speaking of welcome relief, it's early enough in the week that you have both the mid-week "Star" edition to look forward to, as well the newspaper that not only continues to be the largest circulation Sunday newspaper, but for the fifth year in a row has one the Best Weekly Newspaper in the State of Ohio (at least according the the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists). I speaking of course, of none other than the Toledo Free Press.
The Government appears to be about ready to shut down today. Since this is one of the silliest things that the government does (a statement which goes much further than I'm sure the two major parties would be willing to concede), what better time to talk about some of the Silly Bits involved where this particular shutdown is concerned.
Shutdown, Schmutdown ... big deal. After all, we've shut down the government some 17 times in recent history, and for all the common sense that seems to make, the damn thing keeps coming back to life like the evil lead in a Zombie Apocalypse movie. Besides, all the really cool stuff in Washington DC like White House tours, the parks, and the museums were shut down already because of last year's Sequester. (Or so they've told us.)
I for one am suspicious about these so-called shutdowns. They tell us that this one will not threaten the checks of soldiers or the elderly on Social Security, but could eventually threaten the processing of claims for both; all so they can keep the special subsidies for a medical plan for members of Congress and theirs staffs who are making far more than the average citizen. We'll no doubt keep writing checks for foreign aid (a post in itself that will have to wait for another day); all to keep from granting the same one year delay to individuals signing up for the ACA through legislation that were granted by Presidential fiat to employers.
Besides, it's getting hard to worry about the bad things that will happen from this government shutdown when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi already told us only last week that the government has cut everything it can already and can't cut more. If that's the case, for all we know we might have been shut down already.
Democrats want to blame Republicans for this potential shutdown, since it was their idea to shut down the government the last time in 1995. Republicans in turn would like to blame Democrats, since it's Harry Reid and his party in the Senate that seem to have become the party of 'NO' lately in their refusal to compromise (or in many cases, even vote). A pox on both their Houses!
The truth is that Government is on the verge of shutting down because both parties are too busy posturing for position for an election that's 13 months away to have done their job for the previous 12 months. Both parties require some media face time, good sound bites, and a jumping off point for fund raising. So instead of doing one of the few things that they are obligated to do under the Constitution to perform, they ignore their fiscal responsibilities (and common sense) and square off on partisan lines at the last minute in such a way that any decision made must be ill-considered at best and a knee-jerk reaction at worst.
I've got an idea! How about instead of passing a Continuing Resolution, we have them instead pass a law to hold a special election this November for ALL of those currently in office in both houses (regardless of the status of their term). How about we make a 'very special' election' and not allow incumbents to run in it? If your party gamesmanship is so important to that you continuously place it above your oath of office, take the bullet for it and go find another place to work. If you're unable to perform the simplest requirements of the job you have, step a aside and allow us to find someone who will.
According to Democrats and some in the media, Republicans in the both houses of the national legislature should stop messing with Obamacare (The Affordable Health Care Act) because its law. What a preposterous notion!
It's the job of members of the Congress to challenge laws when and if necessary, and to fix those that need it even after they're passed. They've been doing this since the inception of this branch of government and as a result, we've seen things as foolish as the 'Jim Crow' laws of this nation redressed.
Of course, still waiting in the wings is the Debt Ceiling and yet another possible stand off . You remember the Debt Ceiling; it's the limit of the government's ability to borrow money. Now however, the President is out there on the stump telling us that the nation's debt is going down faster than it has in years. Am I the only one that sees the logical inconsistency in this?
If the debt is going down, why have we once again run out of money to borrow? How is it that what we were told were the 'draconian cuts' of the 2012 Sequester have not prevented this from happening as threatened (promised)? If we are so quickly again reaching the national credit limit however, shouldn't we be doing even more to bring in line the government's spending with it's revenues (like delaying a very expensive new government program like Obamacare)?
By the way, where does the $85 billion of government debt that the Federal Reserve purchases in bonds every month figure into this concept? Call it Quantitative Easing or just the monthly bond auction, this government escapade doesn't even show up on the balance sheet. Likewise, no elected official has to approve it, since this is the Fed's money and not really the government. (Like there's a difference?) This ruinous fiscal policy already has already led to devaluation of the currency and will eventually lead to some fairly massive inflation. Such devaluation may some good for some in the stock market and those looking at the national debt we're worried about, but it won't do much good for anyone who earns and purchases in US dollars.
During the 2012 election, Presidential candidate Ron Paul held up a silver dime when talking about the current price of gasoline. He reminded the nation that because of the changing worth of the currency in 'real goods', the value of the metal in what was a ten cent coin when minted was still enough to buy a gallon of gas, even at today's prices.
As to the idea of a federal government shutdown itself, it should probably be pointed out that the real problem may not be whether it should happen or not; but this:
How did we let this government become "too big to fail" in the first place and allow the potential of its temporary shutdown to matter.
The federal government long ago exceeded the limitations placed on it in the the Constitution. This rampant overreach is as much responsible for the potential train wreck than anything else we're facing today. Perhaps if so much money and power were not relegated to this bug-infested swamp on the Potomac River, we'd be cheering rather than fearing its potential of its temporary demise.
