Unfortunately, Americans like me, who'd love a real government shutdown, are few and far between. But that's okay, because I'm used to being in the minority. Besides, as Mahatma Gandhi once said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Earlier this week, the U.S. Senate followed the House’s lead, passing the continuing resolution to keep the government funded through March 18. In other words, Democrats and Republicans did what they always do, found a "compromise." Thus proving once again, Democrats and Republicans are 2 peas in a pod.

Bummer. Because here's what I'd like to know ...

Why is it more important to prevent a government shutdown than it is to stop the profligate spending that is bringing America to her knees?

Seriously. What's so important that it's worth going bust over? I mean, we don't really believe that money grows on trees, do we?

It's simply unsustainable.

The government is driving all of us, each and every one, directly into the poor house. So why is it then ... that we think it's so important to keep it alive?

A Government "Shutdown" Isn't Very Scary (not even a little  bit)

First of all, there have been many government "shutdowns" in my lifetime alone. Between 1977 and 1995 for example, there were 15 federal government "shutdowns," and go figure ... the Earth continued to spin on its axis as if the "shutdown" never happened. Few people even remember.

Second, a government "shutdown" doesn't really shutdown the government. The federal Leviathan won't suddenly come grinding to screeching halt. Social Security and tax refund checks will continue being issued.* Only "non-essential" services are stopped, while "essential" services carry on ... draining away our paychecks.

What's the difference between "essential" and "non-essential" services you ask?

If stopping said "service" would actually reduce government power, it's considered "essential." On the other hand, if stopping the "service" would inconvenience and/or irritate ordinary Americans, it's "non-essential."

For example, if the government were to "shutdown," you could still get molested at the airport by the TSA. But if you need a passport to fly to your destination, you're screwed. Because that, you see, is "non-essential." In other words, your ability to travel (passport) is "non-essential," while government control of your travel (TSA), is "essential."

Government revenue of course, is always "essential." Your family's revenue? Not so much. They need them some tax money, dontcha know?

All the talk from politicians and pundits about a government "shutdown," is nothing more than bad political theater. Scare tactics to convince you that they need, just need I tell ya, to "compromise."  You know the story. We gotta "reach across the aisle," and "make some tough decisions," in order to avoid the pending "disaster."

Oh me oh my, where would we be without our wonderful masters, er, uh, servants?

Always remember that in politics, spending money is power, and politicians don't willfully give up power.

What our country (desperately) needs is, a genuine government shutdown, like the ones going on in the Middle East right now. Living without all these "essential" services for awhile, more Americans would begin to question whether the "services" are needed at all, or at least question whether government is the best institution to provide them.

----------------------------------------------------

*Theoretically, if the shutdown lasted long enough, Social Security checks and tax refunds would eventually stop. Essentially, this is a scare tactic. Politicians on both sides of the aisle will stop everything that directly affects you, long before touching their perpetual wars, patronage, and crony capitalism. Those, my dear friends, are sacrosanct to a politician.