Disbursements.house.gov

A few weeks ago Nancy Pelosi, in a rare display of “walking the walk”, actually fulfilled a campaign season pledge to post the expenses for the House of Representatives on-line. The actual report is a huge PDF document (you can view it here) of 3404 pages that sucks up nearly 10 MB of space in your ‘puter’s innards. One is tempted to wonder if Nancy was willing to hang out this enormous load of soiled laundry because she knew very few would bother to sort through the prodigious amount of excruciating detail it contains.

If that was her intent, I have a bit of bad news for her; rickety antediluvian bunnies have little to occupy their time in the deeps of winter other than fussing with spread-sheets and data-mining software (just as an aside, selecting and extracting meaningful data from a PDF document the size of this mammoth mama is a stone bitch - but that’s a whole ‘nother post). Trials and tribulations aside, following are some ratings/rankings of the really big spenders (top ten) in the House of Representatives that I dug out of Nancy’s Nightmare, as well as info about our own Reps – Fortenberry, Terry and Smith.

I have selected only a few categories of disbursements that I found … um … interesting – such as total spent on franked mail (mass mailings sent to constituents by Congress-critters), personnel costs (how much a Rep spends on staff), and travel. There are a few other categories such as “supplies”, rent, printing, etc., which I may report on later but for now I have only shown the three mentioned as well as the totals. Note that the “Total” category below includes all cost categories – not just the three shown.

A couple of other caveats – in the document cited, there are separate cost centers for each House committee, as well as for individual leadership offices (speaker, leaders, whips, etc.), and for each Representative’s individual office; I have summarized only those costs associated with the individual Representative’s office. Costs deriving from leadership or committee functions are not reflected in the summaries below. Also, the “cumulative” figures are for the first nine months of calendar 2009, and the “3QTR” figures represent, obviously, the third quarter of that same calendar year.

To fund their office, each House member is allotted a certain amount of money called a MEMBER’S REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE, the calculation of which is based on a complex formula involving the distance to the member’s home, the square footage of the office, etc. The exact formulation can be found at page 3329 of the Disbursement Report. The allotment for each of Nebraska’s Representatives is:

Lee Terry – $1,463,636

Jeff Fortenberry – $1,426,571

Adrian Smith – $1,492,195

You should be aware that the expense amounts shown below do not include the salaries of the individual members; The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Total expended funds for 3rd quarter, 2009 = $319,753,889.31. That totals out to around 1.3 billion a year – for just part of the operating expenses of one half of one branch of the federal government – plus another 75 million or so per year for 435 House members’ salaries.

For anyone desiring more explanation/clarification, I recommend going to the original document itself (linked above). Trust me, the detail is there if you’re willing to go after it. By the way, I would recommend at least Version 8 of Adobe Reader – you can download it from Adobe’s home site.

Be well.

“I’m not an ideologue … I’m not …”

When it comes to the flourishing of irony no more fertile soil exists than the lush manure of politics – to wit:

Can it be that the most inexperienced, the most self-regarded, the most ideologically driven, the most administratively challenged Chief Magistrate that this nation has suffered in the last one hundred years will be responsible for pulling it back from the brink of what promises to be the End Days of constitutional republicanism on this continent? Read on ….

Barack Hussein Obama, Bringer of Light, Guardian of the Holy Sepulchre of Hopey-Changey, Keeper of the Sacred Teleprompter, and Self-Anointed Non-Ideologue, has, with his proposed 2011 budget, finally, irrefutably, ineluctably and perhaps irretrievably, fouled the American nest. And maybe, just maybe, his transgression is of large enough scope to awaken a populace that has slumbered too long.

Forget partisan divisions … they no longer have meaning; ignore progressive versus conservative policy considerations … they are small beer; campaigns, elections (primary, general and special), “select” commissions, study committees, patronage, log-rolling, gerrymandering, all the accoutrements of the Life Political have shrunk to an insignificant singularity, of no moment or value. Health care reform? Who cares. Cap-and-tax? Pah. It all quails in the shadow of Barackonomics. What I’m saying is just this – thanks to BHO, we now have no problems or concerns other than the spending/debt/deficit maelstrom; nothing else matters if this isn’t fixed. It’s not just a game-changer, it’s a game-ender. Lights out. Stack the chairs and everybody go home. Don’t even bother to sweep up. It’s over.

We have endured a cavalcade of fiscal mismanagement and juju economics for most of the last 60 years. A catastrophic string of financial illiterates have been in charge (yes, I’m including St. Reagan in my indictment), none of whom had a grasp of basic financial management sufficient to qualify them for a position as Willie Nelson’s tax adviser, much less to run an economy that has twelve to fourteen zeroes after it. But the frailties and mischiefs of the various Oval-Officeers during that time are pale shadows of the chicaneries visited upon us by the current Presidential Prelate.

Since the Sixties, unabated deficit spending has been gospel among the clergy of the Church of America … mountains of debt range from here to the horizon with no thought of, much less a strategy for, dealing with them. Towering trade imbalances are touted as a good thing … healthy globalization, dontcha know. Our economic engine straining a bit? No prob … just print a couple bazillion more dollars and sprinkle them around in the form of government “programs”. And Obama and his minions have transmogrified this fiscal debauchery into high art. The Barack-olypse draws near.

This will not … cannot … end well, folks. Just ask the Romans what happens when you run out of bread and circuses – or, worse, when the people are no longer able to distinguish between the two.

While it may exceed Washington’s cognitive abilities, most of the Huddled Masses understand arithmetic pretty well. The new math be damned, two plus two does not, has never, and will never equal seventeen. Still, we are assured by the Beltway Coven that all we have to do is borrow and spend enough and all will be well. Apparently the debt will evaporate by some mysterious fiduciary alchemy of which the rest of us are unaware.

Well … I am not yet prepared to announce a full-dress resurgence of common sense, but there are reassuring signs around the country that the scales have begun to fall from the eyes of Joe and Melanie Sixpack. The Tea Party movement, though still anemic and, in my opinion, somewhat misdirected, offers evidence of an awakening. The blogosphere and other non-traditional media are a-quiver with a new-found fervor for governmental frugality, and there is a growing gaggle of politicians, ranging from local to federal, at least ostensibly espousing parsimony on behalf of the public.

These are all very welcome signs, but it remains to be seen if such efforts have legs. If they do, then any turnaround will in large part owe its genesis to The One hizownself. After all, without his staggering profligacy, the need for moderation might never rise above the public’s threshold for official malfeasance, thereby begetting (we pray) the much-needed sea change. Hence my earlier reference to the ironiest of irony.

Tangible solutions are still sparse, but a reasonable start might be Congressman Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap to Solvency” released very recently. It encompasses several rational (and effective) alternatives to the Obamic strategy, as well as, it must be said, some other ideas that I personally find overly imbued with Tincture of Washington. But, as the old adage reminds us, every journey begins with the first step. We crave a sensible route … we’ve had quite enough of the political Yellow Brick Road.

Be well.

21st Century Hotpants …

So I got to wondering the other day about this Nigerian fella who tried to take down a jetliner over Detroit on Christmas day using the highly imaginative if ultimately unsuccessful methodology of explosive undies. He has been variously referred to as the Panty Bomber, Skivvy Bomber, Boxer Bomber, and others … though my personal fave is Mark Steyn’s “Knicker-Bomber.” Whatever the appellation, it seems immediately obvious that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is no ordinary sapper. Anyone who is willing to ride several thousand miles astraddle an inguinal pouch packed with high grade ordinance deserves grudging acknowledgment (can’t bring myself to say ‘respect’) for his zealousness, if not for his intellect. However, as is often the case with quixotic but poorly thought-out ideas, UFA’s planned Big Kaboom malfunctioned and he succeeded only in providing himself the Mother of All Hotseats.

Funny thing is, there is a whole cadre of folks, primarily critics of the Obama administration (which is no small club, in case you hadn’t noticed), who have their skirts all up over their heads because Abdul-whatshisname wasn’t hauled off to some secret chamber of horrors, there to have every Al Quaeda secret wrung from his miserable post-Osamic carcass. This seems to me to be plain silly – we’re talking about a dood who just finished fricasseeing his own giblets … he fried his own Fruit while it was still in the Loom, for cryin’ out loud – intentionally! … and he’s going to be frightened by a couple spooks with a board and a bucket of water? I don’t think so …. shoot, by then he would probably have welcomed drowning if it put out the fire in his nether regions.

I’m guessing  he would have been much more tractable if presented with a firm guarantee of 24/7 ice packs and a ten pound jar of Unguentine. But that’s just me. It will not surprise anyone to learn that the gubmint rarely calls to ask for my advice, about interrogation techniques or anything else. They should.

Be well.

Just Say No …

An aspect of the internet that I both value and deplore is the opportunity it provides to wander unbidden down convoluted paths of random electronic foofaraw – some factual, some notsomuch, but nearly always fascinating at the moment. It is the techno-geek’s version of free association – nearly stream-of-consciousness, really – and I confess to a shameless inability to resist the siren song of just one more click – one more URL – just gotta see what’s behind that next digital Green Door. Value because I often stumble upon previously unsuspected facts, relationships and correlations, deplore because I spend (waste?) untold hours diving down a whole universe of HTML rabbit-holes, and even when I do find a nugget I can hardly ever re-trace my steps to properly attribute it.

Told you that to tell you this: recently I happened across a striking bit of commentary – I think it was a comment on some blog or another – that talked about why saying “no” (you remember – conservatives are notorious and unrepentant “no-bees”) is not always such a bad thing. I have been thinking about this very subject for some time, and following are some thoughts; I only wish I could remember where I saw the mentioned comment, because doubtless some of those same ideas will be reproduced in what follows, and the writer deserves attribution. OK – enough with the mea culpas ….

Progressives are fond of, indeed, addicted to, designating those who disagree with them (usually we nasty Conservatives) as “the party of no.” While it is by no means clear to me that this is so, I suggest that even if it were true, it is neither unhealthy for democracy nor dispositively un-American. To those who subscribe to this kind of intellectual bigotry, I would point out that this country is founded largely on concepts of actively limiting unwarranted and unproductive interference with personal liberty by any entity, individual, corporate or governmental. Our grounding documents say “no, you cannot do this or that” a lot – and that’s a good thing.

Our Constitution is a litany of do nots and shall nots (and a few better nots). Detailed limits (don’ts) are placed upon the powers of Federal government in order to assure the liberties of the people. This point was stressed at some length in The Federalist (especially numbers 17, 28, 33 & 78 (Hamilton) and 44 & 46 (Madison), and warrants regular review by those who think governing consists solely of “All engines ahead full!”

Moreover, the Constitution itself is replete, beginning to end, with examples of proscriptive dicta, ranging from “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years …” [Article I, Section 2], through “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification …” [Article VI]. Also, the Amendments are literally a list of injunctions – a litany of “thou-shalt-not’s” directed at any who would abrogate the ideals of freedom:

[Amendment I] Congress shall make no law …

[Amendment II] A well regulated Militia … shall not be infringed.

[Amendment III] No Soldier shall …

[Amendment IV] The right of the people to be secure … shall not be violated …

[Amendment V] No person shall be held to answer …

[Amendment VII] … no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined …

[Amendment VIII] Excessive bail shall not be required …

[Amendment IX] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others …

[Amendment X] . powers not delegated to the United States .. are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Amendment XI] The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed …

[Amendment XII] … shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves …

[Amendment XIII] Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude …

[Amendment XIV] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens ..

[Amendment XV & XIX] The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied …

Those who take the trouble to read the complete text of these amendments will note that there is not even a hint of subjunctive flavor to their restrictions; specific actions are specifically precluded in specific circumstances. We could go on and on, but you get the idea ….

I do not mean to imply that there are no positive, enabling directives in the Constitution because there surely are some of those, but not in a preponderance that would comport with the pervasive paranoia on the Left.  As Buckley ruefully noted so long ago, Progressives remain hopelessly entangled in the notion that “the human being is perfectible”, by the overt adductive machinations of centralized governance, and “that truths are transitory and empirically determined”, such determination being made peremptorily and exclusively by statist planners. The Conservative, contrapuntally, understands that man is by nature imperfect, and must be constrained (don’t do that!), such constraint being first percolated through the filter of a loving and transcendent Providence, and ultimately manifested through the offices and actions of fellow human beings (the Law).

Put another way, the Progressive seeks to direct us toward predetermined goals through coercive actions of the state, while the Conservative prefers that we develop according to our own lights – as long as our liberties do not infringe on those of others.

It seems an easy choice to me.

Be well.

Brain Freeze

I watch the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC with approximately the same degree of enthusiasm I usually reserve for staring for hours at an oozing open wound or peering into the sulfurous maw of Hell, but last night, in a moment of inexplicable dementia, my normally trustworthy remote clicked me into Maddow’s mad, mad, mad, mad world. Imagine my delight to find two crazed Mephistophelians of the Democrat variety (Maddow and some goomer named Bernstein, who is Veep Joe Biden’s “economic adviser”) just absolutely flaying each other over the just-announced Obama-Freeze.

Rachel warmed up on the guy by declaring (not theorizing … or suggesting … or even wondering, but By Gawd, affirming, asseverating, witnessing, swearing) that a governmental spending freeze was the absolute worst possible action to take in a depressed economy. As a quick parenthetical, I found it interesting that she could, in a breathtakingly fustian display of intellectual hubris, discount in toto the thinking of Hayek, Mises and Friedman, whose aggregate theories have been pretty much settled economic doctrine for the last three decades.

Mr. Bernstein lamely countered with a litany of unsupported claims about how it would only be a “partial” freeze (izzat like being “partially” dead?), and would in fact actually increase spending on certain “job-creating” initatives, and other nebulous “trust me” projects. But Rachel was having none of it – she continued to coolly nock arrow after arrow and send them deep into her opponent’s quivering, heaving breast. “Stupid Hooverism” … “absolutely insane” …. I can’t remember when I’ve enjoyed a blood spectacle more.

I t was a clear mismatch. Ravin’ Rachel is a black belt haranguer, a veritable verbal ninja, while the poor schlub in her hot seat was an obvious bogon emitter. By way of clarification for those unversed in behavioral subatomic physics, the bogon (Bogon: a unit of bogosity – something that of itself is bogus) is a hypothetical particle of utter cluelessness, first postulated by Brit sci-fi guy Charlie Stross in his marvelous The Atrocity Archives. Bogon emitters are to be studiously avoided since they can significantly lower the PQ (perspicacity quotient) of whatever local area they occupy. Stand between a couple of BE’s in line at the DMV and by the time you get to the window you can’t remember your own birthday. Ride home in a carpool of these folks and you will require assistance in locating your own front door; you may also find yourself needing a sippy-cup to avoid sloshing that after-work martini on your shirt front.

There is no known defense against bogon poisoning, but college level refresher courses in basic logic and ethics are said to have a palliative effect for those unfortunate enough to have been exposed. Proposed legislation to summarily quarantine BE’s has been found in violation of several constitutional clauses and at least 19 of the 27 amendments, but this is almost certainly due to the preponderance of emitters within the Congress and the Supreme Court.

But back to the subject at hand: when is a freeze not a freeze? Uhhh … apparently, now. But maybe not. Information is scant at this early juncture (The One promises to enlighten us further tomorrow in his first SOTU); I can hardly wait.

Be well.

Hadley, Hospitals and Hypocrisy

Just when you are congratulating yourself that at least your locally elected pol-critters are honest and public-minded, even if the ones at the national level are not, something like this comes along:

State Senator Galen Hadley, representing District 37 of Ye Cornhusker State (wherein yours truly resides) has perpetrated one of the most arrant and unmitigated acts of disdain of the public trust that it has been my misfortune to witness. Rather than reproducing the whole sorry mess en blogge, you can read about it here in the Kearney Daily Hub.

To say I am upset by Hadley’s actions fails signally to convey the extent of my dismay. Following is a letter I wrote to him which captures some of the flavor of my disgust.

Mr. Hadley:

I note in the Kearney Daily Hub that you and another state senator (Kathy Campbell of Lincoln) have introduced and are flogging proposed legislation (LB999), the result of which would be to effectively thwart the building of the proposed physician-owned hospital here in Kearney. It is difficult to express the depth of my chagrin at this action on your part. I view it as cynical and nakedly biased, at a minimum.

You are, and have been for years, closely associated with Good Samaritan Health Systems and their parent organization (Catholic Health Initiatives), and I see no way you can pass yourself off as impartial in this matter. Your overtly prejudiced tactics are particularly disappointing in light of the present-day scandalous conduct of politicians at both the state and national levels. Some of us had hoped that our local politicians were above that sort of unscrupulous behavior, but apparently our hopes were misplaced.

Equally disconcerting to me personally is the fact that I voted for you; you can be sure I will not make that mistake again.

I have, up to this point, been more or less neutral in the hospital debate, assuming that rational and ethical forces existed on both sides of the argument which would ultimately sort the whole thing out to the benefit of the general population. I now see that at least one faction will not hesitate to resort to whatever nefarious practices they feel may provide advantage for them to prevail – and that is the GSHS side which you have so shamelessly (and, to me, dishonorably) represented. You can now put me down firmly in favor of the doctors and their new hospital.

Shame on you, Mr. Hadley – I believe that you have betrayed a public guardianship bestowed on you by a trusting citizenry, and then attempted to pass off your reprehensible actions as concern for appropriate “regulation of health care”.

Disgustedly

Etc., etc.

There is a scene in the original “M*A*S*H” movie where a hapless military driver, tasked with driving Hawkeye and Trapper John around while they were on pass in Japan and thereby exposing him to their continual miscreancy, finally became so saturated with their apparently limitless capacity for hell-raising mayhem that he was able only to shake his head as he was driving and mutter, over and over, “Goddam Army, Goddam Army ….”

I know the feeling … “Goddam politicians, Goddam politicians ….”

Be well.

Political Potstickers

This is not intended as piling on President Obama (who is decidedly not having a good week), but rather as further indication of how out of touch most (nearly all) public officials have become.

In a recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, as part of his answer to a question about Scott Brown’s stunning win in the Massachusetts senate race, the president made the following amazing statement:

” … here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.  People are angry, and they’re frustrated.”

Huh?

Let me see if I understand …. People are angry and frustrated (which explains why Brown was elected), exactly as they were in November of 2008, which, at least according to Obama, is why he was swept into office. Izzat about it?

My question then would be: If folks are still “angry and frustrated” after more than a year, Mr. POTUS, maybe you need to take a look at how well you’ve been doing your job. And while you’re at it, you might mention to that gang of profligates at the other end of the mall (otherwise known as the US Congress) that they could tune it up also.

*********

Nancy Pelosi announced this morn that she doesn’t have the votes to pass the senate version of HC reform bill. Nancy being Nancy however, she quickly added: “We have to get a bill passed — we know that.” When queried as to when that might be she replied “We’re in no rush.”

Once more … Huh?

No rush? … from a lady who has been flogging health care legislation like a stagecoach driver fleeing a band of bloodthirsty Comanches? Are we still in Kansas?

I used to work for a man who taught me many things, but perhaps the most valuable of his lessons was “Never pick a fight unless you’re absolutely certain you will win.” Watching Pelosi over the years has convinced me that she subscribes to this same philosophy – she never steps into the ring unless she knows it’s a lock … and health care reform will be no different.

If she calls for a vote, you can be certain she’s going to win. Like the curious case of the dog in the night-time, a sure sign that health care (at least in its current universally despised form) is dying or dead will be Nancy’s silence on and earnest avoidance of even the mention of a scheduled vote.

*********

And in perhaps the biggest event of the season (yup, Mel … even including Scott Brown’s election), the SCOTUS this morning struck down significant parts of the atrocious McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law, in effect restoring constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech to various groups (including corporations). Those entities have been discriminated against for nearly two decades thanks to a malevolent combination of McCain-Feingold and a 1990 Supreme Court ruling in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

See Steve Hoersting’s excellent post in NRO’s “Bench Memo” blog for further explication. And in the meanwhile ….

Be well.

We, The People …

OK … OK … let’s all simmah down a bit and look at what really happened yesterday in Massachusetts. (is anyone else ready to hurl if you hear “bluest of the blue states” again?)

Color me cautiously, grumpily, sort of mildly gladdened by Scott Brown’s five point victory over Martha Coakley (arguably the most inept candidate since Americus Liberator). In light of his sworn eternal and unyielding antipathy for Obamacare, it seems that his election will make ultimate passage of that pending health care legislative atrocity more difficult – and that is a very good thing. On the other hand, Brown is unabashedly pro-choice, not so much of a good thing, and (at least in my view) his stance on lower taxes and smaller government is demonstrably lukewarm – at best. The term “mixed bag” comes to mind, but I struggle mightily to avoid being ungrateful for small favors.

Indulge me for a moment, gentle readers … here’s the gospel according St. Wiggily;

If ever there was an indictment of the two party (Dem/Pub) system, we saw it last night in the Bay State. Politicos and pundits on both sides of the aisle have already cranked up their spin-o-matics to dizzying levels, but (and Brown craftily referred to this in his victory speech) it was the independents, the unaffiliateds, the nonpartisans, the uncommitteds, that elected Mr. Brown last night. Massachusetts sports an unaffiliated voter population of something over 53% – and last night the nation heard them roar. Registered Democrats and Republicans were secondary participants only.

And those independents roared their disapproval, less of Ms. Coakley, than of the contempt, the outright contumely, manifested by politicians caught in the snares of their own self-interest and petty partisan bickering. Enraged by their leaders’ rampant disdain for the people, Mass voters rose up as a non-partisan monolith to smash a corrupt entrenched power structure that had grown pompous and complacent. It is my fervent prayer that the fever born last night in New England’s bosom will continue to fulminate, and sweep the nation as we approach next November.

In terms that could not possibly be clearer, the Great Unwashed have underlined the notion that government, all government, is created by, for, and of the people. In great, easy-to-read letters, the Finger of the People has writ large on the brow of would-be political custodians, left or right, the following edict: “We brought you in to being, and we can take you out.”

This is the lesson of Massachusetts …

Be well.

Great Scott!!

Today, as most of the country holds its breath and awaits the results of the Massachusetts senatorial election, here are a few thoughts …

First, even if Scott Brown wins, anyone who thinks the liberals will not reach to the bottom of their bag of dirty tricks to maintain their stranglehold on the country is living in a fantasy. Be prepared for recounts, lawsuits, and all manner of other obstructionism – from here to the horizon. The Dems have no history of going quietly into that good night, and they sure won’t start now.

Secondly, if Brown wins and is able to actually get himself seated in time to squelch Obamacare, the irony of Teddy Kennedy’s replacement being responsible for the demise of the pending health care tyranny will be palpable, if not positively glutinous. The very thought of it gives me a Matthews-like tingle up my leg ….

Thirdly, though liberals are not likely to admit it, Coakley’s losing might be the best outcome for the future of their cause. Perhaps a slap up side the head in Massachusetts might give Obama motivation to contemplate a Clinton-like shift to the middle. Though a center-oriented course alteration would be conspicuously cynical and politically motivated, it might still begin to rehabilitate the image of Obama and his agenda, as well as that of the entire Democrat party; such a strategic correction could only improve their chances in the upcoming mid-term elections.

And finally, if Brown loses, thereby loosing the temporarily halted statist juggernaut in Washington, look for this country’s political corpus to be torn apart do a degree not seen since the populist and reform movements of the late 19th century.

It will not be pretty.

Be well.

*****UPDATE*****

Fred Barnes has an article on the Weekly Standard site that makes the case (if Scott Brown wins) that the current appointed “place holder” of that Senate seat (his name is Kirk) can no longer vote once the election is done – even if there is a recount or any other kind of delaying mischief. Republican lawyers state confidently that this is so (it is not recorded what Democratic lawyers say). But what this means (if correct) is  – even though the Republicans may not have 41 votes to maintain a filibuster, the Dems will only have 59 votes! Remember it takes 60 votes to move the legislation. Voila – Obamacare is deader than last year’s corn shucks.

Ya think?

The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the tolerance of the oppressed

I can’t speak for every citizen in this hallowed republic but I believe most Americans, whether of the multi-generational variety or newly-minted, are fair-minded and reasonably even-tempered. We’re quick to praise, slow to anger, and we’re willing to forgive most venal, and even a few mortal, affronts. But we do possess a very real threshold of tolerance for shameless villainy beyond which the prudent interloper will not venture – a fact which politicians and other public panjandrums are blithely ignoring (at their peril).

In an orgy of disdain for not just their constituents, but indeed for all Americans, elected (elected!) government officials continue to ram dystopian laws through a Congress that has become a laughable simulacrum of what was originally conceived to be the greatest national representative forum on the planet. Blatant lying, flagrant self-aggrandizement, hypocrisy, betrayal, and arrogance (oh my stars, the arrogance) – all have become acceptable, even laudable, tactics among the ruling class.

And while votes are sold on the open market to the highest bidder and shady backroom deals are being cut by Dingy Harry and his 59 thieves, what has the “loyal opposition” been doing? Why, just deploring the dickens out of those foul Democrats and their dirty deeds, that’s what. Whoopee. This is not a partisan matter, folks … Dems and Repubs are measles and mumps … spiders and snakes … flotsam and jetsam … sturm und drang (for the Wagnerians among us). Why in the world doesn’t someone – anyone – stand up on the floor of the House or in the well of the Senate and just … raise … hell? Is there no one left in Washington who would like to move up from the status of craven annelid to merely invertebrate?

Rebellions are not that easy to initiate – King George perpetrated all manner of mischief and humiliation on the colonies before a bunch of easy-going good ole boys with muskets finally said ‘enough’ at Lexington and Concord. Lincoln practically had to put fire ants in Jeff Davis’ drawers before the Confederacy reluctantly cowboyed up and started shooting at Fort Sumter, and the French street fumed and frothed for years before Louis XVI finally turned his gendarmerie loose on those thousands of pesky sans-culottes tearing up the bastille and stomping around the Versailles courtyard shouting for his head. But even the most lethargic giant can be awakened if he is sufficiently poked and prodded ….

That being noted, the gang of rotters currently infesting Washington should be aware that the electorate which they have been so exuberantly abusing for years is, I suspect, dangerously near its flash point. I have no knowledge of planned insurrection, and I certainly do not advise such action, but when a government so completely scorns those whom it was created to serve, the options left to the people are seriously limited – and those remaining courses will almost certainly be considerably less … uh … civilized than the pols might wish.

I have been interested in and moderately well-informed about matters political since the early sixties, and I can recall no time in which the degree of people’s anger and frustration with their leaders has even approached its current level. And the politicians don’t care – they are smugly certain that We the Sheeple will continue to allow them abuse us to whatever extent they choose. They are wrong … and their time to avoid swift and certain rescission grows short. My hope is that their repudiation will be based in ballots, and not bullets.

Interesting times … be well.