With the government shutdown looming, we have been told over and over and over again that essential government personnel will not be affected by the halt. The military will continue to be paid. Social Security and Medicare checks will continue to go out. So if the government can continue to function with just “essential” personnel, why do we have “nonessential” personnel at all?
“May I bring up another point? And Pat, why don't you write this one up on the board, number three. You write this one up on the board. When the government shuts down today, it will only shut down nonessential personnel,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “So could you just write down number three should be: Why not fire everyone nonessential?”
“So you're thinking, by the fact that they're indicating they are not essential, they should not hold positions in the first place,” Stu clarified. “Because the word ‘essential’ means needed."
“Exactly right. Well, I'm thinking that since we have a debt of $17 trillion, why not fire everybody that is nonessential,” Glenn reiterated. “Here in New York everybody's talking about it. Now, in Texas nobody's saying a word about this. Texas is one of the states that is so self‑reliant, it's barely going to affect Texas. But states like New York, they're going to panic tomorrow. So they're saying, ‘Don't worry, here in New York only nonessential government offices are going to be closed and not working.’ Well, I think that's a good. I think this is how to cut the budget.”
When you consider the state of Washington D.C. and really take a look at the so-called ‘leaders’ that continue to get us into this now-annual mess, you might consider that the best use of the government shutdown would be to close down Congress. After all, they have largely proven to be “nonessential” lately.
“You know who I'd like to see not function,” Glenn asked. “Congress. Just shut them down.”
“Unfortunately, they think of themselves as essential,” Stu explained.
“You know the Founders didn't see Congress that way. The Founders see Congress exactly the way Texas sees their House and Senate, and it operates every other year for three months. And if there's anybody within the sound of my voice that thinks that your life wouldn't be 100% better with Congress only in session every other year for three months, you're crazy. Think about how much better things would be in our country if Congress only met that amount of time,” Glenn said. “You could do all the crappy stuff you wanted in your own state. I mean, Massachusetts, you could meet 24 hours a day. You should elect two Houses and Senate. So when one House is really tired and has to go home at night, you've got another one that can just continue working through the night. But the rest of us would have, you know, every other year for three months. And that would be great.”
It might sound unfathomable to some that a government could function in such a way, but, if you look at a large state like Texas, it is managing just fine.
“Somehow we make it,” Pat said of the state. “We have roads. We have schools. Our government is actually in the black. We've got a rainy day fund of, last I heard, $10 billion in the bank.”
“Because they don't have time to do anything. They don't have time to spend the people's money,” Glenn explained. “They don't have time sitting around listening to all of these people who have special projects and special needs.”
“And not only is [Texas] with the legislature meeting every other year, it's with no state income tax at all. Zero,” Pat concluded. “So how is it that states like California and New York, with excessive state income taxes, with legislatures that meet all the time, can't make it? How is it?”
Front page image courtesy of the AP
