Free Markets, Free People

Why we’re in the mess we’re in: Because we have idiots in leadership postions and we leave them there

We’re governed by half-wits who’ll say anything to shift the blame or misdirect the public if they think it helps their party and fool us:

Pelosi rebuffed GOP calls for the sequester replacement to focus exclusively on targeting more spending cuts and entitlement reforms.

“It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address,” she told Fox News’s Chris Wallace on Sunday.

How in the world does this jaybird think we got into the “budget deficit problem?”

Back in 1984, a columnist named Charlie Reese wrote a piece which pretty much cuts away the artifice that those we allow to “govern” us have woven:

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

Whatever the problem (and despite Pelosi, it is a spending problem) they are the cause.  “They” being Congress.  It is “they” who have gotten us into this mess, so when one of them say things like this, just consider the source:

Pelosi added that the deficit and debt are at “immoral levels” and “must be reduced.”

Reese gets to the nut of it all (btw, this is an updated version where someone has put events happening now vs. those in 1984 – the irony is, nothing has changed):

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)


It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees… We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

We should. But we won’t. And … well, we’ll continue to get what we richly deserve for not doing our job.


35 Responses to Why we’re in the mess we’re in: Because we have idiots in leadership postions and we leave them there

  • You really have to understand our government.
    You see, it’s not a crisis when you put a gun to your head .. the crisis begins when you pull the trigger.

  • The world is full of imbeciles. I was just at a Buzzfeed article about how Obamacare will impact the young, and the comments are astounding. One lady just keeps saying that state officials implementing Obamacare really has nothing to do with Obama. Hmmmm, yeah, its not his law, his signature, and his HHS doing the rule-making. He’s totally cool and would never do something wrong – even inadvertently! There has to be some mistake, or some angle not being discussed! You just dread the thought of this person in a few years nodding emphatically when President Hillary says that the insurance companies made Obamacare fail, and so we now need to….

    • “The world is full of imbeciles”
      We seem to be working extra hard to create or import them here.

      • AND then elect as many as we can manage to national office.
        Pelosi being a classic example.

        • Yes, there needs to be a word for these intelligent imbeciles, if you get my drift. The commenter had the skill to use a computer, string together some semi-plausible phrases, and had the intelligence to realize that maybe state officials are not the same as federal officials. You know, I don’t mind really smart liberals who can lay out a decent argument, but it seems like they are getting lazy lately.

          • That’s because it’s so much easier to say “shut up and do what I (expletive) tell you.”

          • Maybe not a word, but a phrase – “bottom feeding oxygen thieves” seems appropriate.

      • Every time we invent an idiot proof process, Nature invents a better idiot….

      • Comprachicos.
        It’s not like someone didn’t predict it, right down to the slightest details.

  • Because we have idiots in leadership postions and we leave them there

    I disagree with the premise here, McQ.  Oh, yeah, there are idiots in office (Boxer, Waters, Johnson, Conyers, Pelosi come to mind).
    But mostly we have people who are cynical, ideologically driven people who do bad things (Fwank, Dodd, Kennedy, etc.)
    Term limits.  I’ve been all around this barn, and I keep coming back to it being a GOOD idea whose time has come.

    • Term limits would rotate the “same” idiots every two terms.
      Do you really think the constituents for (Boxer, Waters, Johnson, Conyers, Pelosi will vote differently every other term?

      • Maybe.  In SOME districts.  But it does have the virtue of at least giving the voters SOME chance to break a bad habit.
        Doesn’t it…???

        • I figure straight “term limits” would be declared ubConstitutional (most likely by the 9th Circuit), so I figured term limits on consecutive terms.

          • Term limit do two things.
            Makes a politician not at all beholding to his constituent 50% of their career instead of 5, 10, or 15%
            Put elected officials at the mercy of lifer bureaucrats in relying on how things operate.
            I prefer saying no more than 8 years of service in a 16 year period.  I’d prefer they sit out two terms.  And I’d prefer they serve their limited time  consecutively.  I can see where sitting out one term, a politician doesn’t have to go back to normal life.  IF they sit for 8 years, chances are no one is going to pay them to warm the benches and they may have to find real work.

          • If your first assertion is true, we cannot hope for self-government.  I claim it is NOT true, certainly as a blanket observation.  Part of your cynicism derives from experience with a baronial political class with a sinecure in office, which term limits break, inviting a different class of people into public service.
            If you were elected to office, are you so weak and ignorant you would “be at the mercy of lifer bureaucrats”?  I would not.
            I never specified any plan of term limits, and certainly there are many variations.

  • I gotta say you hit it out of the park! With your permission I’m going to put this on the old blog site, of course giving credit and links to you. Thanks! What a great piece!

  • I like my congressmen! I just don’t like yours! Could this be part of the problem?

    • No. When someone says “We will have to pass it to know what’s in it” and gets re-elected then its game over.

      • Hence….he likes his Congresscritter, but not yours.   We can be sure that unless she’s stuffing the ballot box SanFranNan’s voters are in sync with CONEY’s comment.
        Perhaps the issue is that some Congresscritters are more equal than others, not just that they’re batshit crazy like Nancy is.

    • Somewhere Hank Johnson’s constituents perhaps saw no problem with his concerns about Guam capsizing.   In fact, they probably wondered why none of those other IDIOTS in Congress thought of that danger!
      And thank God this Pope is retiring, now the church can get on board with Nancy’s views on what the official (her version) Catholic church doctrine is on matters temporal and spiritual.

    • In San Francisco, definitely.
      That’s where idiots like Pelosi are coming from.

  • The Reese piece reminds me of what Ross Perot said of GM management after he was kicked off the board of directors. Basically, the guys in charge screw up and blame it on somebody else. It isn’t just government.

  • “How in the world does this jaybird think we got into the “budget deficit problem?”
    I’ll wager that the answer from her would be that taxes on the rich were not high enough.

    • The rut problem (as Sheila Jackson-Lee would have it) is leaving anything with the people who earn it.
      Lil’ Dick Trumka, too.

      • Heh heh, ‘cept their money of course, they earned that money ya know.
        No no,  we was thinking more along the lines of them Koch fellers boy, they got all the wrong uses for their money, all the wrong uses.  Hardly worth them having it and THAT is a problem that has, just has I say,  to be fixed.

  • One thing you won’t hear when President Obama delivers his State of the Union address Tuesday: An ambitious new plan to rein in the debt.
    In recent days, the White House has pressed the message that, if policymakers can agree on a strategy for replacing across-the-board spending cuts set to hit next month, the president will pretty much have achieved his debt-reduction goals.

  • So in 2009, the Santa Ana Unified School District borrowed $35 million using an inventive if increasingly controversial method known as capital appreciation bonds, which pushed the cost of the construction on to future taxpayers. Not a cent is owed until 2026. But taxpayers will eventually have to pay $340 million to retire that $35 million debt.

  • I’d like to see the case made that we can do worse than outlawing incumbency altogether.  Any serves an elected office with a fixed term, and they cannot serve any other elected office until the time they have most recently served has passed.  Let them serve as many terms as the want, they cannot be sequential in any capacity.
    No incumbents.  100% turnover.  I’d like to think no would go back unless they stayed squeaky clean, and even if they don’t stay squeaky clean, I can’t see that we’d do worse.

    • I would take that over our current mess. Don’t underestimate the capacity of power-hungry pols to game that system, though. Look up the “take turns” administrations of Frank Clement and Buford Ellington in Tennessee in the 1950s and 1960s. Governors were barred from immediate re-election, just as you suggest. It didn’t matter much in the end.

      • If voters are dumb enough to let that happen, there is not any fix that would work.  You just have to craft the best solution you can…which always includes the concession that people can screw themselves if they are of a mind to.