Okay, I think I may get highly political in this column today.
First, let me say that I think the current government impasse — lack of funding — is a bad thing. Our government ought to be able to work together.
Second, let me say that the results of the lack of funding may be a good thing.
Major stories have been calling this a government shut down. Talk about a misuse of the English language. How can you call it a shutdown if 83% of the government is still running?
What this really is is a government slim down. The only way a person loses weight is to cut calories. The only way to balance a budget is to limit spending.
(I know, some of you are thinking, you can raise income to balance a budget. For a government this means taxes, of course. The problem with this, is the same thing that happens to the dieter who decides to lose weight by working out more — if you burn more calories, you consume more, and 9 out of 10 times you consume more than you burned. Same with increasing taxes. In both cases, if you aren’t thinking about controlling the other end at the same time, it never works.)
Sometimes a person finds themselves unable to do it themselves, so they hire a weight loss coach, or go to a weight loss camp where they are prevented by others from eating what they shouldn’t, to lose weight.
Well, this government slim down is the same thing for our government. And it is showing that the government doesn’t have to spend all the money it has been spending, and the world still can go on.
Obviously, the real solution is to make those cuts, and those spending decisions, together, rationally, and not hit all the same sensitive areas. But since that couldn’t be done, government has gone to the fat farm. I hope they stay there long enough to have real success, and come back out able to continue the weight loss regimen.
At The Rainbow 
While I do agree with your main point, that we spend too much, I can’t agree that even a partial shutdown is anywhere close to a morally acceptable way to achieve spending reductions. It’s interrupting vital scientific research to (among other things) find cures for diseases innocent children are dying from. We are being kept out of the parks and monuments we already paid for. People who do real work benefiting veterans, seniors, feeding and helping to educate the poor, are being needlessly prevented from doing it, or being asked to do it for no pay.
The refusal to govern undertaken by a few members of Congress is nothing short of a treasonous refutation of the rule of law. At the very least, every politician involved deserves to lose their job.
LikeLike
Mikey:
My point 1) the impasse is a bad thing
My point 2) the results may be a good thing
Side point 3) doesn’t mean all side effects are good.
From what I can tell, the House of Representatives has fulfilled all of its constitutional obligations. It has passed bills for the funding of government. The Senate and the president have refused to act on those legitimate items.
Additional point 4) Many of the items being shuttered weren’t even being funded by the federal government. And many people willing to volunteer to work for free (Catholic Priests), weren’t allowed to.
I think perhaps we depend on the government for too many things. All those items you mention as interrupted, could be handled by volunteers and/or the private sector much more efficiently, were the laws to allow. The people stepping forward to fund programs that have been left down show the start of the right idea.
We need to learn to take care of ourselves, and thus take care of those around us. Depending on the government isn’t dependable — as this current situation proves — and it makes us lazy.
LikeLike
I’m sorry. It’s not legitimate to shut down any part of the government to force a “do-over” on laws or election results you don’t like. It’s never been done, because to do it is a refutation of the rule of law. And doing piecemeal appropriation bills isn’t governing. It’s the legal equivalent of hostage negotiations. The House bills aren’t legitimate, because they don’t address all areas of need and obligation required, and they don’t accept a law that was passed and reviewed by the Supreme Court. This entire problem is the House’s fault.
LikeLike
You certainly have an interesting definition of legitimate.
LikeLike
Yeah, it is interesting to use the dictionary definition I suppose:
Legitimate = “conforming to the law or to rules”
LikeLike
If it isn’t a legitimate exercise of power, then take them to court. They are conforming to applicable laws and rules, just not the ones you have defined.
LikeLike
We don’t legally have the option to sue the government for not governing. We can only vote them out, or impeach for cause. I think they’ll reap what they’ve sown next election.
LikeLike
Legal: conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
Legitimate: conforming to the law or to rules
Then by your own words and their definitions what they are doing is legitimate, if not convenient to you and others. Thank goodness you still have the right to express your displeasure by voting. But don’t try to claim a moral high ground that doesn’t exist.
LikeLike