Imagine
a large, multi-national corporation, one that employs 2.8 million workers. This is a publicly-traded company, with
shareholders who provide capital and a board of directors that provides
governance and oversight.
Now,
let's say the board is divided roughly equally between two factions, each of
which wants very different things.
Further, let's assume these factions get so bogged down in in-fighting
and political gamesmanship that the politics become the focus, rather than
acting in the best interest of the shareholders, which is what corporations are
in business to do.
In
fact, let's assume that things get so bad, the board can't even approve an
operating budget. Instead, they pass a
series of short-term measures permitting management to spend a limited amount
of money on only the most basic business functions.
Every
time a long-term operating budget is considered, each of the board's factions seeks
to attach items to the approval vote that have absolutely nothing to do with
funding long-term operations of the business, nor with acting in the best
interest of all the firm's shareholders, and the opposing faction will refuse
to consider those additional measures.
Thus,
the operating budget vote fails every time, not because the requested budget
amount is too high, or the allocation of budget resources is inappropriate, but
because each side seeks to turn the budgeting process into a political
football, knowing that its requests will be so unpalatable to the opposing faction
that the budget vote will fail. Then,
each faction can blame the other, seeking to sow discord among the
shareholders.
Why? Simple: as long as the shareholders remain
divided, the divided board can continue to serve as directors in perpetuity,
and enjoy the benefits that accrue to being a director of the corporation.
None
of the shareholders will demand change on the board. Instead, they just get sucked into the
board's political gamesmanship. And like
the sheep they are, they'll continue to support the board members whose spin
they buy into, never recognizing the truth that the entire board is corrupt and
dysfunctional, and its political warring does nothing to further the
corporation, or to serve its shareholders.
What
would happen to such a company? In the
private sector, it could never get funding.
Without a budget, analysts wouldn't be able to forecast the company's
earnings, thus they'd never recommend its stock as a "buy." Instead, every analyst in the market would
issue a strong "sell" recommendation.
Potential investors wouldn't put in capital. The company's stock price would plunge. Ultimately, the business would fail.
Folks,
this is exactly what happens with the federal government every time we get one
of these shutdowns. The only difference
is that the board is made up of our elected legislators, the CEO is the
President, and we the sheeple are the shareholders.
Except
we're not shareholders in the traditional sense; we've got a gun to our heads
in the form of the tax code. We don't
have the option to not buy stock - our "investment" is our tax dollars. The capital we provide to fund America,
Inc.'s operations is provided involuntarily.
Our
vote on the board members, however, IS our right, and that can't be taken from
us. If we can stop blindly bleating long
enough to recognize that the problem lies with BOTH factions, and with the
process itself, maybe we'll grow the cojones to vote only for board candidates
who will fix the process once and for all.
Now,
the Curmudgeon always seeks to educate and inform. So let's look at the current shutdown in
light of the long history of government shutdowns (yes, this isn't the first
time this has happened), and in light of the current situation.
First,
this is the 18th government shutdown since the current method of appropriations
approval has been in place, dating back to President Reagan's presidency. In fact, President Obama
"weaponized" the shutdown process, shutting down access to national
monuments and national parks when this nonsense happened under his watch. At least this time, those facilities are
remaining open to the public, even if some aspects, such as visitors' centers,
are not open.
Second,
it is always a political football. The
appropriations measure that would fund ongoing government operations winds up
being tied to some unrelated, ancillary measure that one party or the other
wants, and the party that wants that ancillary measure uses the government
funding vote to further its partisan agenda.
Here
are the facts as they relate to the current situation. First, no one has voted to shut down the
government. That is a false narrative
that has been promulgated by the media.
Rather, the Senate failed to vote to fund the government. That distinction is important to anyone who's
paying attention.
Second,
while it is true that the government has never shut down when one party had
control of the House, the Senate and the White House, this cannot be blamed on
the Republican party. (Note that I am
neither Republican nor Democrat; I am a registered Independent.)
The
Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in majority to fund the
government, not to allow it to shut down.
Some Republicans voted against the measure, and some Democrats voted for
it. Thus we can't blame the House.
The
Republican-controlled Senate failed to vote in majority to fund the government
rather than allow it to shut down (more on that later). So we can blame the Senate, but at this
point, we can't blame any one party.
As
for the Republican-controlled White House, we can hardly blame the President,
as no bill has been presented for him to sign.
The House approved a bill, but the Senate failed to approve it. The President cannot be held responsible for
not signing a bill that was not delivered to his desk.
Now,
what of the Senate's failure to approve a spending bill? Here's the gist of it: neither the
Republicans nor the Democrats want the government to shut down. And neither party wants to see our military
personnel not be paid; that would be a sacrilege.
Beyond
that, the Dems want a path to citizenship for the DACA
"dreamers." That's fine; the
Republicans are willing to concede to that.
But in exchange, they want to stem the future tide of illegal
immigration by providing for border security.
No one can argue that illegal immigration is a problem in the U.S.; Bill
Clinton and Barack Obama argued in favor of that very point.
However,
the Dems were only willing to provide a small fraction of the funding necessary
to provide for border security. So basically,
the position of the Senate Democratic leadership, as presented by Chuck
Schumer, was, "We want a path to citizenship for the 'dreamers,' but in
exchange, we're only willing to provide a small portion of the funding
necessary to provide border security to prevent future DACA-type
situations."
That's
not a compromise, that's a hostage situation.
Knowing that a successful Senate vote on funding the government (which
has nothing to do with DACA or border
security) requires a number of Democrats to get on board, Schumer et al used
the funding process as a negotiating tactic to add in something his party
wanted - a DACA resolution - but without being willing to provide the quid pro
quo of border security.
And
that's why we are where we are today. If
we were to strip out the totally extraneous issue of immigration from the
question of ongoing government funding, there would be no shutdown. If the Dems would accept a compromise along
the lines of a DACA resolution in exchange for full border security, there
would be no shutdown.
Note
that, not only did the House approve ongoing government funding, but a majority
of Republican Senators voted to fund the government while a majority of
Democrat Senators voted against it, and the Republican President stood ready to
sign an ongoing funding bill approved by both houses of Congress. So how is this Republicans' fault?
Now,
having said this, let me say that a government shutdown is in no one's best
interest. Not paying our military
personnel is unconscionable. Moreover, I
have family members who are federal employees, and their families are dependent
on their ongoing incomes. They should
not be victimized by the political footballization of their livelihoods. This is simply and plainly wrong.
Let
me next say, related to my initial private sector comparison, that this is why
we should all favor lower taxes. What
would never be tolerated in the private sector is considered business as usual
in the public sector, and this is why the private sector is always more
efficient in deploying the dollars entrusted to it than the public sector. In short, I'd rather keep more of my money
and let private businesses solve our problems than entrust it to the government. (Lest you doubt this, consider the criticisms
of the government response to the catastrophic hurricanes this past year, while
private businesses stepped in and helped provide relief far more efficiently.)
Thus,
we should all be in favor of paying less in taxes for smaller government, and
relying more on the more efficient and effective private sector to solve our
problems.
Finally,
here's the Curmudgeon's message to every member of Congress: You work for me. I pay your salary. Whether you are my Senator or Representative,
or are from another district or state, I pay you, through my tax dollars. Thus, you work for me, and I own you. And you'd better by God get your sorry arse in
line and do the job I pay you to do, or by God I will do whatever I have to do
to bring you home, and you can try to get a job in the private sector, like the
rest of us stiffs, and we'll replace you with someone who can get the job
done. You are not special. You are not privileged. You are my employee, and I expect you to work
for me, not for you. Thank me later.
If
we all take that line, this country actually has a chance of succeeding, and
competing, on the world stage. If we
don't, I'm afraid we're destined for banana republic status.
