Shutdown Fatigue

The federal government shut down at midnight, when Congress proved to be unable to agree on a another stopgap spending bill.  As is usually the case, the Democrats and the Republicans used the looming shutdown to try to increase their leverage to obtain their political goals — whether those goals are immigration reform, or health care funding, or something else — and when neither side blinked, the shutdown occurred.  Of course, each side then blamed the other.

We’ve been through this scenario multiple times before, most recently in 2013.  We somehow made it through each of those prior cataclysms, and I’m pretty sure that the sun will come up today as well.

I may be wrong about this, but out here in the heartland I’m sensing a lot less angst, generally, about this shutdown than seemed to be the case with prior shutdowns.  Maybe it’s because we’ve been through this same, pointless charade multiple times before, and the country just has a lingering case of shutdown fatigue.  Maybe it’s because, with the flood of scandals and tweetstorms and investigations and unseemly behavior that has been washing over the nation in recent months, we’ve already used up our storehouses of outrage and have just been psychologically bludgeoned until we’re functionally insensate.  Or maybe, just maybe, we’ve come to recognize that all of this shutdown stuff is just more callous political maneuvering by both parties, and we’re heartily sick and tired of being viewed as mere pawns to be manipulated in the stupid power games that are always being played in Washington, D.C.

Whatever the cause, we’ll just go on living our lives, without paying too much attention to the yammering politicos and their efforts to pin all of the blame for this unnecessary disruption and unending dysfunctionality and irresponsibility somewhere else.  Who knows?  Maybe if we just ignore this latest shutdown, the politicians might realize that their shutdown gambit isn’t working anymore and actually go back to doing their jobs.

The “Glitches” Continue And The Concerns Grow

The continuing saga of the federal government’s Affordable Care Act website is worth following, because it is telling us a lot about how modern government works, and doesn’t work, and what we should believe.

Most people, including me, have focused on the access issues with the Healthcare.gov website — that is, the fact that there are ongoing reports that people simply cannot get on the website and use it as intended, and whether the design of the system in fact works against that.  But there are other issues, too.

For example, how complete and accurate is the information the website is collecting?  Anyone who has filled out a health-care application knows that a mass of information must be provided.  A recent article quoted industry sources who estimated that only one in 100 applications completed on the website contain enough information to actually enroll someone in a plan — which of course is the entire point.  As the article notes, much more serious problems could be coming if people believe they have successfully enrolled, only to be told later that the information they provided was insufficient or lost.

And speaking of information — how secure is the data those lucky people who have been able to use the website have provided?  Health care information and financial information is extraordinarily confidential.  Given the apparent design flaws with the website, why should anyone have great confidence that the designers at least got system security right?  Given the coverage of the problems with the website, are legions of hackers around the world targeting it as an easy potential source for personal information, like Social Security numbers and credit card data?

And finally, there is cost.  Some sources have tried to piece together government contracting data to determine how much the Affordable Care Act websites have cost the taxpayer.  The Washington Post says about $400 million has been committed to the health care exchanges.  The Digital Trends website estimates the cost so far is more than $500 million, with a total cost of more than $2 billion expected.

With costs like this, it’s fair to ask whether we are really getting our money’s worth.  On Thursday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius visited Pittsburgh as part of a nationwide campaign to tout the exchanges.  She assured the audience that the “glitches” were being addressed and the system is getting better every day.  Event planners had brought more than 20 certified health care application counselors to meet with uninsured people, but even the certified counselors couldn’t access the Healthcare.gov website.  So, who do you believe — the bureaucrat who says the system is improving, or the fact that even computer geeks can’t get it to work?

The IMF Should Shut Its Yapper

The IMF has weighed in on the silly sequestration process that our dysfunctional government implemented, saying the budget cuts in the United States were “excessively rapid and ill-designed.”

I agree with the “ill-designed” comment — no rational person could think that the sequestration process was “well-designed” — but the IMF really doesn’t seem to be troubled about the process, so much as the fact that the cuts were made at all.  The IMF report suggests that government spending cuts inevitably hurt economic growth, both in the short term and the long term.  The report states, for example, that “indiscriminate” reductions in education, science and infrastructure spending could reduce potential economic growth.

Here’s the money quote:  the IMF report concludes that the sequestration cuts “should be replaced with a back-loaded mix of entitlement savings (related to healthcare and pensions) and new revenues, along the lines of the administration’s budget proposal.”  Let’s deconstruct that conclusion.  “Back-loaded” means not right now.  “Entitlement savings” means don’t cut government payrolls or government contracts.  “New revenues” means raise taxes.

In view of the recent experience in Europe and the U.S., it’s hard to believe that reputable entities would continue to insist that government spending creates economic growth, but it’s not surprising that the career bureaucrats at the IMF and its perma-tanned leader, Christine Lagarde, reached such conclusions.  The IMF is one of those curious, quasi-governmental entities in the modern world that is supported by government money and interacts with government employees who spend tax dollars.  In view of that fact, of course the IMF is going to object to government spending cuts and contend that increased taxes are the only answer.

The IMF has zero credibility on what produces true economic growth.  It should just shut up about how the United States conducts its economic affairs and be grateful for our substantial contribution.

Why Fret About A $2 Million Federal Internship Program?

A few days ago the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an audit report on the Office of the Chief Information Officer’s FY 2011 and 2011 Funding Received For Security Enhancements.  It’s a report by the USDA’s internal watchdog about how one section of the USDA spent part of its budget — a look at how a tiny fraction of the sprawling federal government actually used our tax dollars.  A copy of the report is available here.

The executive summary of the report notes that, in 2010, Congress more than tripled the budget for the CIO, from an $18 million baseline to $62 million, to enhance information technology security for the agency.  In 2011, the budget was set at $40 million, more than double the $18 million baseline, for that same purpose.  The CIO therefore received $64 million in additional money over the two-year period, and it funded 16 projects with that sum.

Of the $64 million, $6.7 million — or more than 10 percent — was spent on projects not proposed to Congress.  For example, $2 million was spent on a two-year internship program that purportedly was intended to “develop and sustain a highly skilled IT security and computer technology workforce.”  The CIO spent $686,000 developing a “networking website” for the program, and another $192,000 for housing.  Only one full-time intern was hired, however.  The audit report also noted that the internship program “did little to further the more pressing objective of improving USDA’s IT security.”  Stripped of the bureaucratese, therefore, the $2 million was wasted.

Some might argue, why should we care?  It’s only a few million dollars in an overall federal budget that now amounts to trillions.  For some of us, however, a few million dollars is still a few million dollars.  We don’t want to see it wasted — particularly when, in our current deficit-spending posture, we have to borrow from somebody else, and pay them interest, as part of the ugly, wasteful bargain.

More importantly, the story of the internship program reveals a deeper truth about the bureaucratic mindset.  Why would anyone charged with enhancing IT security think an internship program was an appropriate use of the money in the first place?  The real answer, I’d wager, is empire building.  Bureaucrats want to have ongoing programs they can administer and people they can supervise; those programs get built into their job descriptions, become part of their goals and objectives for the year, and help them to move up the government wage scale.  We can only imagine how the proponents of the internship program touted their development of the “networking website,” their selection of housing, and their development of the selection process as key performance successes during the year.

This is the fundamental problem.  In a government of bureaucrats looking to build their departments and pad their resumes, the spending of tax dollars is not a significant concern on the radar screen.  That culture needs to change, so that when a mid-level administrator suggests an internship program as a proper way to improve IT security, the suggestion is met with incredulity and promptly quashed.  We need tightwads, not empire builders, in our federal agencies.

The inspector general report on the USDA CIO spending shines a light on one small part of our government, and what it illuminates is a deeply troubling cultural concern.  If we ever hope to get our spending and deficit problems under control, that culture needs to change — now.  Unfortunately, neither President Obama, nor our current Congress, is doing anything to bring about that necessary cultural change.  That is why, I think, many people are considering whether we need change at the top of our government, too.

About That Concept Of “Running The Government Like A Business” . . . .

We often hear politicians, of both parties, talk about trying to run the government “like a business.”  Of course, the government isn’t a business, and it inevitably doesn’t run like a business — even when it is performing a business-like function.

The latest example of this reality is the news that Amtrak is selling food and beverages to its passengers at a loss.  In the last decade, Amtrak’s food and beverage cars have lost $833 million.  $833 million!  How did that happen?  Because Amtrak is selling food and beverage items for less than it costs to supply them.  According to the linked article, every cheeseburger costs Amtrak $16.15, yet Amtrak charges its customers only $9.50.  Every can of soda costs Amtrak $3.40, and Amtrak charges its passengers only $2.  The fact that each can of soda costs Amtrak $3.40 tells you something about Amtrak’s uncompetitive cost structure, given that any American can buy an individual can of soda — to say nothing of the per-can cost of a twelve-pack — for much less than that.

Of course, no business could remain in operation if it racked up $833 million in losses over ten years and regularly sold goods for much less than it costs to provide them.  The fact that Amtrak has done so for a decade just confirms that bureaucrats don’t think or behave like businessmen and aren’t subject to the same competitive pressures that cause companies like Wal-Mart to constantly search for ways to bring goods to market for the lowest possible price.

People of different views may disagree about whether we should subsidize Amtrak fares in order to support mass transit.  Does anyone, however, really think it is appropriate that taxpayers also subsidize the cheeseburgers and sodas that the Amtrak passengers consume on their already subsidized journeys?

Wasting Tax Dollars — High-Speed Edition

They’re talking about building a high-speed rail connection between Las Vegas and Victorville, California.  Of course, they’ve been talking about that idea for years.  The difference now is that our government is seriously considering making a $4.9 billion loan — that’s billion — to help finance the project.

Amazing, isn’t it, that after the disastrous failure of Solyndra the federal government would still consider making any loans to private firms, much less loans of billions of dollars?  That’s not the only amazing thing about this proposal, however.

For those who aren’t familiar with California geography, Victorville is 68 miles from Los Angeles.  The concept for the “DesertXpress” train thus envisions L.A. residents bound for Vegas white-knuckling their way through the appalling southern California traffic and then, just as they reach the wide open spaces of the High Desert, getting off the road and waiting for a train!  If they want to play golf in Vegas, they’ll wrestle their clubs onto the train, too!  And then, after a ride that is only about an hour shorter than driving, the train will deposit them at a station in some remote part of Vegas, so they can catch a cab to get to the Strip!  And they’ll happily pay at least $50 one-way (or more than they would pay for gas, even at today’s high prices) for this privilege!

Nothing wrong with that well-conceived concept, eh?  Skeptics might contend that our leaders should follow a simple rule:  if a business plan is so fantastic that even venture capitalists won’t buy in, the federal government shouldn’t, either.  If DesertXpress can’t convince capitalists to invest, taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to fill the void — no matter what kind of phony feasibility studies or rosy projections of increased employment might be cited in support of the project.

Remember, too, that the United States doesn’t have money on hand right now.  If we loan money to DesertXpress, we’ll first have to borrow it from other sources and pay interest.  And when the DesertXpress goes toes up, as common sense dictates it must, our loan won’t be repaid, and we’ll have to dig even deeper into our own pockets to pay off what we borrowed.  Can our government seriously be considering putting us in such a position?  Seriously?

 

On Tax Day, Remember The GSA!

All American taxpayers should be grateful this April 15, as we curse and finish our returns and contemplate how much we pay to our federal government:  we have the General Services Administration out there working for us.

You all know the GSA, of course.  Its website describes the GSA as “responsible for improving the government’s workplace by managing assets, delivering maximum value in acquisitions, preserving historic property, and implementing technology solutions.”  To translate: the GSA are the bureaucrats bureaucrats.

The GSA has been in the news lately, but not due to its selfless performance of its crucial bureaucratic mission.  No, the GSA is in the news because the agency spent $822,000 — $822,000 — on its 2010 Western Regions Conference in Las Vegas.  That included payments for upscale accommodations, commemorative coins, and $3,200 for a “mind reader,” among other indefensible expenditures.  When an Inspector General’s report uncovered the gross waste, the GSA Administrator resigned.  Now the GSA official charged with organizing the event, who has been subpoenaed to testify about the matter before Congress, has indicated he will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.  In short, there’s not just concern about bad judgment — there’s concern that outright criminal conduct may have occurred.

If you look at the GSA website, you’ll find a video of the acting administrator of the GSA, Dan Tangherlini, soberly pledging that the GSA will adhere to the highest standards of ethics and service.  (You’ll also learn that the GSA has its own flag, which appears behind him.  Thank God for that!)  The video is a classic of buzzwords and bureaucratese — other governmental bodies are called “client agencies” and “customers,” and the response to the abuse of the Western Regions Conference talks about rules and “top-down” agency reviews.  In short, the timeless solution to abusive practices in the bureaucracy is more bureaucracy!

Forgive me if I’m not reassured that the same agency that allowed the abuse is recommitted to its end.  The only real solution to waste and abuse in government is to cut back government, period.  Does anyone really think the country would grind to a halt if the GSA budget were reduced to one-third of its current size?

As I sign and send my returns today, I’ll be thinking of the GSA and its careful stewardship of our tax dollars.  And during this campaign season, when we hear candidates for federal offices talk about how “draconian” proposed budget cuts are, and how we need to raise taxes because cutting spending is just too difficult, I’ll think “Remember the GSA!” And then I’ll vote for their opponent.

Another Week, Another Stalemate

Ho hum.  If it’s Monday, there must be another political stalemate in Washington, D.C., and another possible government shutdown looming.

The contours of this dispute are familiar.  Federal funds are running out and a short-term spending bill must be passed.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency also needs more money.  As a matter of fiscal discipline, Republicans insist that the increased funding for FEMA should be offset by cuts elsewhere.  House Republicans passed a bill that would make $1.6 billion in offsetting cuts that target the Department of Energy’s Advanced technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, which makes loans to car companies to pay for things such as factory upgrades and the development of new, green, fuel efficient technology.  Senate Democrats object and argue that the cuts to the DOE program would cost up to 10,000 jobs.

I’m with the Republicans on this one.  Congress can always find an emergency to justify more spending.  If we don’t make cuts to compensate, spending will just spiral even more out of control.  Moreover, the DOE program sounds like a classic federal boondoggle.  If market forces make better fuel efficiency important to car buyers, car makers will have plenty of incentive to spend their own money to achieve better fuel efficiency.  And haven’t we done more than enough for auto companies lately, with the taxpayer-financed bailouts of GM and Chrysler?  We need to curb our appetite for ever-increasing spending, and curtailing programs that subsidize big auto companies seems like a good place to start.

For all of their protestations about being serious about restraining spending, Senate Democrats apparently are unable to identify even $1.6 billion in spending “cuts.”  Doesn’t that say something about how serious they really are?

Who Is This Guy? (The Spending Side)

I was very interested in President Obama’s speech yesterday about our serious budget problems.  Because I wanted to get an unfiltered understanding of his position, I read the speech in its entirety on the White House website, here.  After I finished, I was left with a lot of questions.  The biggest one was:  “Who is this guy, and what does he truly believe?”

In the first part of the speech, the President talks about American history, the development of social programs, and how our deficit spending problems came about.  Eventually, he describes the four parts of his plan.  It really doesn’t have the kind of details you would expect to find in a concrete plan, however.

The first part of the plan deals with domestic spending.  The President’s description of this part is found in a paragraph that reads:

“The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week.  That step alone will save us about $750 billion over 12 years.  We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs that I care deeply about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments that we need to grow and create jobs.  We will invest in medical research.  We will invest in clean energy technology.  We will invest in new roads and airports and broadband access.  We will invest in education.  We will invest in job training.  We will do what we need to do to compete, and we will win the future.”

What are the “tough cuts”?  Who knows?  This paragraph says more about what the President wants to spend money on than its does about what he will cut.  Seriously, in all of the thousands of programs administered by the federal government, couldn’t the President name at least one or two that he thinks could be sacrificed on the altar of fiscal responsibility?  When our nation’s leader can’t even bring himself to name one specific cut, it doesn’t instill much confidence that cutting is really going to occur.

I’m sure some of my friends will respond that President Obama would be foolish to name particular programs, because it would be like a poker player tipping his hand.  I disagree.  Being President means leading, and it is time for President Obama to stop being cagey about his positions.  If he wants Republicans to yield on some aspects of the budget debate — like reducing defense spending, for example — he needs to show where he will yield.  He hasn’t done so.

This is one of the instances where I wonder about what President Obama really believes.  At times during the campaign and during his presidency, he has talked about getting our fiscal house in order, bringing spending under control, and living within our means. Where is the evidence that he really believes what he has said?  If the President’s big speech on a “plan” to deal with our crippling budget deficits fails to identify any actual spending reductions, I think it is fair to question whether the President really believes the platitudes found in his speeches.

I’ll have some more to say about other aspects of the President’s speech and four-part plan in later posts.

Protest, And Response, In Wisconsin

We are learning a lot about a changing America, and a changing political landscape, from watching the ongoing story in Wisconsin about legislation that would affect collective bargaining rules for public employees.  The story began with public employee unions flexing their muscle.  They prevailed upon their members — many of whom apparently called in “sick” — to flood the state capitol in protest.  They also prevailed upon Democratic state senators to flee the state and bring the legislative process to a halt due to lack of a quorum.

But then something surprising happened.  Yesterday, a counter-demonstration occurred, as thousands of “Tea Party” activists and other citizens came to the state capitol to support Wisconsin’s Republican Governor in his budget-cutting efforts.  In all, police estimated that 68,000 people came to the state capitol to either support or oppose the collective bargaining bill, and they did so peacefully.  Even more interesting, police report that there were heated arguments between the opposing sides, but no violence.

It is not surprising that teachers and public employees would turn out to protest; their pay and benefits will be directly affected by the outcome.  What I think is extraordinary, however, is that thousands of citizens whose interests are not directly affected were motivated to spend a Saturday outside, advocating in support of the budget-cutting efforts of Wisconsin’s governor.  It says a lot about the deep level of alarm about out-of-control spending that thousands of people would spend their precious weekend hours at a counter-protest.  Wisconsin’s governor, and his Republican allies in the state legislature, must have been encouraged by the strong show of support — which probably is the tip of a much larger iceberg.

It also says something that thousands of people could turn out to support competing sides of a hotly debated issue without violence.  The teachers, public employees, and citizens who went to the state capitol to exercise their rights to free speech and assembly look a lot more adult than the Wisconsin Democratic Senators who turned tail and ran out of state rather than participate in the political process as they were elected to do.

Time to Put Matthew Lesko Out Of Business

If you’ve watched TV at odd hours, you’ve seen Matthew Lesko.  He is the hyped-up guy wearing a suit covered with question marks who hawks books about how to get government money so that you can realize your dream of becoming a French chef.   One of his books is called Free Money For Everybody.  His webpage includes testimonials about how people used the information in his books to finance activities through money they obtain from government agencies.  One testimonial is from a New Jersey folk singer who used Lesko’s information to get federal and state money to fund his performance of historical songs in schools.  Another is from a New York dairy farming family that got $12,000 from a local government to put in a gravel walkway for their cows.

No doubt Lesko is a savvy businessman who has done a good job of identifying governmental programs that hand out cash and making information about those programs available to everyone who will plunk down the money to buy one of his books.  However, the title of his book Free Money For Everybody aptly captures a real problem with modern America.  There really can’t be “free money for everybody,” of course, and the money that is being shelled out for gravel cow paths and historical folk singing is most certainly not “free” — it is being borrowed from governmental creditors, at a price.

One area of this kind of governmental largesse is job-training programs.  Those programs are politically attractive to support, because no one wants to be viewed as opposing efforts to help displaced workers learn new skills.  A recent report, however, has shown that those programs are largely ineffective and are riddled with waste.  At the federal level, there are 47 job- and employment-training programs administered by nine different federal agencies, as well as another 51 federal programs that have some form of job-training focus.  In short, there inevitably is duplication and inefficiency.  The report notes that these programs cost $18 billion annually and are, almost without exception, ineffective in helping unemployed workers find jobs.  Moreover, the report recounts examples of waste, fraud, and mismanagement in how the federal funds are spent.

Both President Obama and House Republicans have said they want to cut spending and make government run more like a business.  One way to do that is to end the notion that there is “free money for everybody” by terminating federal programs that shell out money for purposes and projects that really aren’t essential.  In this era of huge deficits, the time has come to put Matthew Lesko out of business.

Please, Not More “Stimulus”!

Tomorrow President Obama gives his State of the Union speech.  Advance stories indicate that the speech will focus on the economy — no surprise there! — and that the President will call for more government “investment” in science, education, and innovation.

“Investment” is, of course, just a code word for more government spending.  The only reason the word “stimulus” isn’t used any more is that it has acquired deadly connotations for American voters, who recognize that the initial “stimulus” package was a leaden failure that grossly increased the federal debt without producing much in exchange. Doesn’t “investment” in “education” and “science” sound an awful lot like using our tax dollars to pay for more government jobs?  And as for “investment” in “innovation,” is there really anyone out there who thinks that members of Congress or government bureaucrats could distinguish true innovation from a cracked pumpkin?

We may find out tomorrow that the President has a great plan — but until then, color me skeptical.  Whenever I hear the argument that the way out of our ongoing recessionary doldrums is still more government spending, I have the same horrified and anguished reaction as the poor, lost soul Richard depicted on the wonderful bit of “kid art” accompanying this posting.

Illinois Ups The Ante

Last week Illinois passed legislation to significantly increase its income taxes in order to help solve its dismal budget deficit problems.   Personal income tax rates in Illinois will go from 3 percent to 5 percent — a 66 percent (!) increase — for the next four years.  Corporate taxes also will increase.  Legislators passed the bill only hours before a new legislature was sworn in, and coupled the tax increases with a promise that, during the four-year period, spending increases would be limited to 2 percent a year.  Given that Illinois has a $25 billion annual budget, the “strict limits on spending increases” means the Illinois legislature will have to scrimp by on only $500 million in new spending every year.

The actions of the Illinois legislature and Governor are precisely why “tea party” candidates were successful in the 2010 election and will be probably continue to be successful so long as government spending is out of control.  It will always be easier for politicians to defer hard choices on spending, so as to avoid upsetting any constituency, and then seek tax increases imposed by lame-duck lawmakers who are leaving office and, perhaps, seeking jobs with the same constituencies who are trying to avoid spending reductions.  I’m sure, however, that Illinois residents will appreciate the brave actions of their elected representatives and will be happy about paying even more taxes in a down economy where families have already engaged in significant belt-tightening.

I’m hoping that Governor Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly don’t follow the lead of the Illinois legislature.  The path to a balanced budget lies in spending cuts, not tax increases imposed on struggling citizens and businesses that are expected to produce jobs.  And if the Ohio government can resist the urge to raise taxes, it may find that Illinois residents and businesses may look favorably on Ohio as a more tax-friendly place where they can relocate and leave corrupt, spending-addicted Illinois politics behind.

Our Senate, Our Shame

It is all so predictable, and yet still so infuriating.  Yesterday Senate Democrats unveiled a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that would fund the government through fiscal year 2011.  The bill numbers 1,924 pages.  It includes more than $8 billion in earmarks for some 6,000 pet projects for Senators.  According to the Washington Post report on the legislation, it includes the familiar litany of pork barrel projects — millions for non-profits associated with deceased politicians, hundreds of thousands of dollars to study port dredging and swine management, and on and on.

In this instance, the Senate has failed to pass individual appropriations bills, which is one of its most basic responsibilities.  So, Senate Democrats have followed their game plan from the appalling debacle of the “health care reform” legislation, have combined a dozen individual spending bills into one massive bill that no outsider has had a chance to read, and then have announced that the legislation has to be enacted by the end of the lame duck session or the government will shut down due to lack of funds.  Why not?  Process and public scrutiny be damned.  They are the Senate, after all, and they can do what they want.  They obviously believe that they don’t need to concern themselves with the unmistakable message in favor of fiscal restraint that the voters sent on Election Day, or the effect of this tawdry, trillion-dollar exercise in vote-trading on the United States and its staggering debt problems.

The Senate used to fancy itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”  Those days are long since past.  As led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the current Senate appears to be a motley collection of political hustlers who avoid the hard work of legislating in favor of cheap theatrics and gimmicks designed to increase their leverage for getting federal money for their cronies.  At bottom, they just want to get theirs, and this obscene omnibus budget maneuver gives them a shot at doing so.  They have the souls of pirates, rather than the souls of statesmen, and our beleaguered country is suffering mightily as a result.

On A Possible Republican Sweep, And The Political Lessons To Be Learned From The Tale Of Brave Sir Robin

If the polls are to be believed — and that remains an open question in my mind — Republicans are likely to win the House of Representatives and have a long shot chance of assuming control of the Senate.  If that occurs, voters will find out whether the Republicans mean what they have been saying during the campaign or whether they will instead be like Brave Sir Robin.

Remember Brave Sir Robin from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?  He was the publicity-hungry knight who desperately wanted to join in the search for the Grail.  He left on his quest accompanied by a minstrel and a cadre of musicians who sang constantly about his adventures.  And yet, when the going got tough and the giant three-headed knight awaited, Brave Sir Robin made no attempt to fight.  As his minstrel sang:

When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely talking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin

I’m tired of politicians who talk a good game but don’t deliver.  I’m hoping that, if Republicans in fact sweep to victory this November, they will indeed slash spending, reduce the deficit, and restore fiscal sanity to our federal government.  If they instead act like Brave Sir Robin, I think that will be it for me and the Republicans.  I’ll have to start looking for Sir Lancelot elsewhere.