Sunday, August 28, 2011

Send out the clown

A rodeo clown wears some of the most garish outfits imaginable. But who would expect ordinary from someone who'll willingly tease a 2000-pound bull that's wearing a bucking strap around his groin? While unquestionably odd, the rodeo clown's wardrobe is functional, which is more than can be said of Rep. Frederica Wilson's (D-FL) attire. One glimpse of her costume will send a bull scrambling for his sunglasses.

Western wear isn't unacceptable congressional dress, nor should it be. The cowboy look is an integral part of Americana. But the Technicolor edition of a dude ranch reject is a step too far. Even if Rep. Wilson offered substantive solutions to the obstacles facing this country, in particularly the black community, it would be difficult to take her serious when she looks like a Dodge City pimp. Not to worry, Wilson offers nothing in terms of discourse.

Rep. Wilson blames racism for high unemployment among blacks, especially young males. The least she could do is spout rhetoric as flashy as her wardrobe. Instead she plays the race-card, excuses irresponsible behavior, and promotes big government solutions to undesirable circumstances. In fact, big government is a chief contributor to the condition she laments.

Government decided it was a good idea to establish a minimum wage without regard to market realities. However, employers can't retain employees who produce less benefit than the cost of their employment. Therefore businesses are forced to dismiss underproductive employees, who are typically young and inexperienced. This reality is especially evident among young black men. Cost verse benefit is a simple economic concept, yet it's lost on Rep. Wilson.

Governments at all levels have complicated the business climate, making entry difficult. For instance, operating a taxi cab in an urban area is a viable service young black men could offer. Yet cab license fees can reach
six digits. How many young men, of any race, can afford such an initial outlay? Similar obstacles face other young, black entrepreneurs. It's not racism that erects these obstacles, it's big government.

Rep. Wilson ignores other factors limiting black economic success as well. No one forced young black men to adopt a rap culture that degrades women, devalues academic success, mocks the rule of law, and dismisses family responsibilities. Racism isn't the source of a 70-percent
illegitimacy rate among Black Americans. It was big government that replaced the black father, leaving young black men rudderless. Liberal policy has released generations of black men from their parental duties.

Finding common sense in modern government is yeoman's work. Representatives like Frederica Wilson only complicate the task. There's no reason to take someone serious when they make less sense than a pantomime presentation and dress like the Phantom of the Grand Ole Opry.

South Florida voters sent in this clown. Here's hoping they'll send her out again.

A Lesson in Government Effeciency

If a picture is worth a thousands words, this video is worth a thousand books. Here is government in action!

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Investing in government is a losing proposition

There's no questioning Warren Buffett's ability to invest. People who sink their money in dry oil wells and earthworm farms don't become billionaires. Buffett is one of those rare people who can spot a winner, act on it, and turn a tidy profit. Thus he's amassed a sizeable fortune. What's wrong with that? Ask Warren Buffett.

Buffett is one of the "super rich." He controls vast capital resources and he enjoys his wealth. But he doesn't believe he or his super rich friends pay enough federal income tax. The tax code, according to Buffett, includes too many loopholes through which the super rich can shelter their earnings. According to Buffett's own assessment, he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than do the people who work for him. To rectify that disparity he looks to the federal government -- under the leadership of Barack Obama, the man he endorsed for president -- to equalize the playing field.

Right on cue, one of America's wealthiest men echoes the White House's call for "shared sacrifice." However, Buffett's apparent love for taxation isn't new. The Oracle of Omaha is known for endorsing higher
income taxes and the estate tax, as are many of his super rich friends. But there's something dangerously wrong with this mindset. If the super rich are indeed concerned with the fiscal struggles lower economic classes face, they have the means to singly address the issue. Why do they need government to do for them what is well within their individual power?

Buffett lamented his "low" tax bracket in a recent New York Times
editorial. According to Buffet's numbers, America's 400 richest people reported a combined taxable income of $90.9 billion in 2008, an average of $227 million each. If the top 400 contributed half their incomes to people of lesser means, they could make instant millionaires out of 45,450 of their countrymen. Such charity would be private and voluntary, without a dime being filtered through the federal government, except for the gift taxes of course.

I'm not suggesting wealthy people actually surrender any portion of their fortunes to anyone for any reason, nor am I denying their authority to do so. Indeed wealthy people, including Warren Buffett, have entered a
compact to contribute at least half their fortunes to charitable causes. That's fine; their wealth is theirs to disperse as they please. But no wealthy person need lobby government to tax their incomes and redistribute their wealth when they alone are perfectly capable of doing so.

On the other hand, let's suppose Buffett succeeds in raising taxes on America's top earners. What then? Well, for starters, even if the federal government had confiscated every nickel of the $90.9 billion the top 400 earned in 2008 it would barely dent the federal deficit and wouldn't scratch the national debt. In fact, $90.9 billion dollars will fund government spending, which exceeds $3.6 trillion annually, for only nine days. We can share the sacrifice until everyone sings Kum Ba Yah and still not solve our fiscal ills.

For Warren Buffett to scratch out an editorial about being under-taxed is utter nonsense. No one who pays a tax based on their earnings, whether great or meager, is under-taxed. Washington receives enormous revenues no matter the income tax rate. Buffett's own numbers prove that lower tax rates create more revenue for government. Decide for yourself if that's beneficial.

Citing IRS data, Buffett points out how the top 400 earners in 1992 produced $16.9 billion in taxable income and paid 29.2-percent in taxes. As mentioned earlier, the top 400 earned $90.9 billion in 2008, but paid only 21.5-percent in taxes. In using these numbers Mr. Buffett misled his readers, prompting them to believe the rich paid fewer taxes in 2008 than in 1992. Actually, only $4.93 billion in taxes were collected on the 1992 incomes while $19.54 billion were collected on the 2008 incomes.

The highest earners obviously netted more income and paid a lower percentage in taxes in 2008 than in 1992. But they paid more in real taxes, meaning Washington received more actual dollars. Furthermore, America's wealthiest people have for
years shouldered the highest percentage of the tax burden.

There's nothing to be gained in demonizing wealthy Americans. As long as their wealth isn't the product of criminal endeavor, shady dealing, or government cronyism, it's no one's business how the rich became rich or how rich they became. Class envy dogma is as disingenuous as it is deceptive, and it's equally disingenuous for multi-billionaires like Warren Buffett to preen and crow about the need to pay more taxes. Such rhetoric seeks public admiration for offering a fraudulent solution that ignores our fundamental fiscal problems, government's profligate spending.

If Mr. Buffett harbors guilt over his vast wealth he can write a check to the U.S. Treasury anytime he wants for any amount he deems suitable. There are other options at his disposal, too. He can shun the tax loopholes and shelters he considers an unfair advantage. He can ignore the accountants and lawyers whose advice reduces his taxable income. Each action is unilateral and voluntary; each can be pursued without infringing on his neighbor's liberties. There's no need for Buffett, or anyone else, to invoke government's heavy hand to dispense private wealth.

The rich are too poor to satisfy Washington's spending appetite. Like a gluttonous eater, Washington gorges on the fruits of productive Americans from all income levels. The federal government could gobble up Warren Buffett's
net worth in less than a week with room left for a hearty dessert.

Even if raising taxes on the rich increased government revenues there's no evidence to suggest Washington would properly manage those funds. Warren Buffett is a wise investor. But he's dead wrong if he truly believes higher taxes on the rich will improve life for the lower or middle income classes.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Bearing no faith or allegiance to the Constitution

Before taking a seat in Congress, all elected Senators and Representatives must swear an oath of office. In summary, they are required to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, bearing full faith and allegiance to our nation's foundational law. Their oath confirms their willingness to bear these duties freely and without reservation. It seems the vow was changed when the people weren't looking.

Too many members of Congress, predominately the Democrats, regard the Constitution as an obstacle, not as a sacrosanct document they must support and defend. They bear little faith, and less allegiance, to its directives. The Constitution, now a "living" document, has devolved into a legislative and bureaucratic playground where anything goes. Alleged representatives have decreed the federal government
above the restraints imposed by a 200-year-old parchment. There are no constraints, no delegated federal powers, and no reservation of non-delegated powers for the states and the people. Anyone who dares question Congress' obvious contempt for the Constitution is dismissed as a crackpot.

Our once-revered Constitution is now reserved for political grandstanding and posturing. Otherwise, it's increasingly irrelevant to the central government's actions. Federal disdain for the Founding Father's crowning achievement was thoroughly displayed during the debt ceiling debate. Rep. James Clyburn, a high-ranking but woefully inept Democrat from South Carolina, encouraged President Obama to "sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment" to raise the debt ceiling
unilaterally, bypassing Congress altogether. His colleagues reportedly applauded his proposal.

Ironically, Clyburn and his political kin once condemned a president for usurping congressional authority. That president was accused of going to war unilaterally, ignoring Congress' power to declare war under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The accusations were pure demagoguery. U.S. troops weren't deployed to either theater,
Afghanistan or Iraq, via presidential decree. Congress voted on both wars, expressly granting authority to the president to use military force as he deemed necessary.

The same legislators who falsely accused a previous Executive of abridging congressional authority encouraged the current Executive to do just that. Politics, not principles or delegated duties, drove these legislators' interest. The Constitution, and their oath to uphold it, became an afterthought. The disingenuous nature of James Clyburn and his ilk is thereby established. But are their claims about the 14th Amendment accurate? Does the Constitution enable the Executive to raise the nation's debt ceiling arbitrarily?

Sen. Barbara Boxer agreed with Clyburn. "As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, I urge every American to get their Constitution and read it. It says the debts of the United States shall not be questioned."

Boxer is correct in one regard. We should read our Constitution, all of it, especially the 14th Amendment. There, in Section Four, are Boxer's words, but only in part. Predictably, she hasn't born full faith and allegiance to the document. The Constitution's language regarding the public debt doesn't support her position, so she simply ignored the words she found politically inexpedient.

The 14th Amendment indeed addresses "the validity of the public debt of the United States." However, that debt must be "authorized by law." Raising the debt ceiling naturally increases the government's access to revenue. Therefore, to be authorized by law, any attempt to increase the federal government's ability to borrow must arise in the House of Representatives in order to comply with Article 1, Section 7. Furthermore, according to Article 1, Section 8, "Congress shall have power . . . to pay the debts of the United States" and "to borrow money on the credit of the United States."

The 14th Amendment itself grants the President no authority to increase the nation's indebtedness by a single penny, or to secure debt in any manner. Section Five of the 14th Amendment explicitly entrusts authority for enforcing the article's provisions to Congress, not to the presidency. The President can do nothing in regard to the public debt of his own volition. In fact, neither the President nor the Executive branch is mentioned in the 14th Amendment's text, save for the recognition of voting rights.

I hope Sen. Boxer is satisfied. I read my Constitution and found her in utter violation of both the document's spirit and language. She, Rep. Clyburn, and their nefarious left wing cabal are totally ignorant of the Constitution's division of powers and authorities, or they've born untrue faith and allegiance to the same in blatant violation of their oath of office. Barbara Boxer, James Clyburn and their cohorts should be expelled from Congress. So should any Senator or Representative, regardless of party or ideology, who so disregards their oath.

The Legislative Branch is far too comfortable shifting their constitutional duties to the Executive Branch, when it's politically convenient. Such an arrangement, allowing a single public officer to make key decisions, may expedite government activity. But it's not how representative government functions. It's dictatorial, pure tyranny. The Founders designed our Constitution to restrain the central government, compelling it to move deliberately. It should never be unfettered and able to act on the whims of a single authority.

Our representative republic is in perilous condition. By and large, congressional delegates possess contempt for the Constitution they've sworn to uphold, and for the electorate they represent. Too many Representatives and Senators care nothing about constitutional checks on federal authority, the separation of powers, or their responsibility to the public's trust. They pledge loyalty to a document they haven't the slightest intention of honoring, making them liars from the moment they utter "So help me God." Yet they have the audacity to lecture the population as if we're ignorant or irresponsible.

Our Senators and Representatives, especially Barbara Boxer and James Clyburn, should read the Constitution. It's past time they bore full faith and allegiance to its principles, as their oath demands. Said oath of office has not changed. If Congress members honor their vow they can remain the people's delegates in a representative republic. If not, they are despicable tyrants who should be removed from office without delay.

This article first appeared at
American Thinker.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Judge Judy tackles entitlements

Arguments persist over just how America arrived at insolvency's precipice. There may not be a single reason, program, agency, policy, or bureaucracy to shoulder the entire blame. The fact that we're here is the culmination of a methodical, long-term process. However, there's one culprit that is central to nearly all government expansions, and thus to our fiscal deterioration. It's one that every productive member of society from the street sweeper to the CEO should blame . . . the bum.

A bum is everything the name implies, from irresponsible slacker to societal parasite. However, America is afraid to blame bums for their lowly condition; it's politically incorrect. People who were yesterday's bums, loafers, and freeloaders are today's disenfranchised and less fortunate. They are the losers of life's lottery, relegated to poverty because someone else stole a disproportionate share of America's prosperity.

Thank God for television's Judge Judy. She isn't afraid to blame the bum for being, well, a bum. Her public courage has earned my respect and gratitude. She should earn yours, too. Watch the video and you'll agree.

Judge Judy is 100-percent correct in her assessment of both the plaintiff and defendant. The two parties in this case exemplify greed in its purest form, the "me" attitude that hampers America's economic growth and leads to fiscal insanity. Their general disdain for self-sufficiency reflects the core of the entitlement mentality. One sues to collect rent that she herself never paid. And the other considers government grants and subsidies a birthright. These two people, and millions like them, are drains on society, contributing nothing while believing themselves entitled to their heart's desire.

According to a quote attributed to economist Arthur Laffer, "When you tax something you get less of it. When you subsidize something you get more of it." Liberal politicians have done a thorough job of
taxing productivity and subsidizing unproductiveness. Therefore they have generated an ever-increasing segment of the population with no compunction about living off the production of their neighbor, as the two people in Judge Judy's court demonstrate. And Judge Judy wants to send the aforementioned video to Congress, as if most members care?

Congress, through 40-plus years of various welfare, entitlement, and Not-so-Great Society programs, created the parasites in her courtroom, people who believe they're entitled to enjoy life's necessities, pleasures, and perks at someone else's expense. Such entitlement parasites are the liberal voting base, and an exponential expense to the rest of us. Not only has the entitlement mentality become a drain on federal revenues, it has deprived the marketplace of what the entitlement recipient would've otherwise produced. We lose on both counts.

Go ahead and send the video Judge Judy, with my blessings. But frankly, you're wasting your stamp.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

America’s chickens are roosting in a train wreck

Rev. Jeremiah Wright infamously declared that America’s chickens had come home to roost. He was speaking of the 9/11 attacks, and his opinion brought him well-deserved scorn. The loosest of canons in the Trinity United Church of Christ may have been justified had he said America’s chickens would roost in the Congressional Rotunda or the Obama White House.

Like hens and roosters, our alleged representatives preened and crowed over the debt ceiling deal they hammered together earlier this week. They’ve mugged for the cameras of a cooperative media, patted each other on the back, and flashed the "thumbs-up" sign. After finishing their latest work -- "on behalf of the American people" -- our federal rulers were all smiles while mopping their brows as if they had just dug a four-mile ditch through rocky ground.

Washington may view their latest contribution to American insolvency as reason to spike the football and exchange high-fives all around. But those of us in the great unwashed see their work as one collective mooning from 535 juvenile delinquents, plus one gigantic bird-flipping from the Delinquent-in-Chief. We’ve been had . . . again! Washington dug a ditch, no doubt. But through that ditch will flow a torrent of red ink, drowning yet another generation of unborn Americans in a debt they didn’t create, authorize, or deserve.

The entire debt ceiling debate was predicated on
falsehoods. Didn’t our betters tell us a debt ceiling increase was essential to preventing default and maintaining the nation's stellar credit rating? Wasn't increasing our debt the only way to prevent a stock market collapse? Washington employed a scorched earth strategy on the American people, using misrepresentations and utter lies to instill a false fear in the population. Moody’s promised a wait-and-see attitude toward the latest Washington spending spree and Standard & Poor's issued a downgrade, exactly what the debt ceiling increase was promised to prevent. If our credit rating sinks it will join the New York Stock Exchange, which has faltered since government announced it had approved itself for a new series of loans.

Factually, can extending the national debt breed confidence in America's national creditworthiness, considering the current debt isn't being repaid? If you or I attempted a similar stunt we’d be arrested, tried, and jailed for credit fraud. At the least we’d see our credit lines cancelled and be forced to live within our means. However, to our federal house of lords, living within our collective means makes as much sense as the evening news from Jupiter’s third moon. Nothing has changed. Washington will go on pretending it can borrow its way out of debt, which is as logical as trying to dive out of the ocean.

Not even the numbers make sense. Of course, it’s difficult to imagine numbers in the trillions. So let’s put them in perspective. If each dollar of the current $14.57 trillion national debt equaled one second of time, the total debt would equal 462,011 years. And we don’t have a debt problem? The figures Washington elites have tossed about don’t add up, either.

The debt ceiling
deal promises spending cuts of $2.1 trillion over 10 years, or $210 billion annually. Conversely, the government can now borrow an additional $2.4 trillion, which will satisfy Washington’s credit appetite only until 2013. We can add another $3.3 trillion in federal tax revenues to what Washington will “borrow” over the next 16 months. If the intent weren't to spend the entire $3.3 trillion, the borrowed funds wouldn’t be necessary. And if the borrowing will only feed the government beast for 16 months, the intent must be to spend all revenues, both collected and borrowed. Thus Congress and the White House plan to blow through $5.7 trillion by January 2013, an average of $356 billion per month.

Math isn’t my strongest subject. Maybe it isn’t yours either. But this much I know; $5.7 trillion dollars spent in less than a year-and-a-half exceeds $2.1 trillion saved over ten years. And we must accept on faith that the promised “cuts” will actually materialize. Faith, in this case, may as well be a synonym for naiveté. You might have faith in the innate goodness of the snarling pit bull inside your neighbor’s fence. But stick your leg through the gate and the dog will gnaw it to the bone. Government is gnawing us, too, in the wallet and elsewhere.

The debt ceiling plan is pure fantasy. J.K. Rowling couldn’t have written it better. The spending reductions don’t exist. They’re a magician’s trick, at best only slight reductions in the rate of growth. The new debt limit, which will undoubtedly be raised again once it's reached, is our rulers' solemn pledge to spend this nation into oblivion.

The federal government is a runaway train, hurtling down a steep grade and gaining speed. With the cliff in sight, Engineer Obama is pushing the throttle full forward while Senators and Representatives from both parties shovel coal into the firebox. If we don’t pull the brake, hard and quick, the most dynamic economic engine the world has ever known will be a smoldering hunk of mangled steel. All the while our federal chickens cluck, strut, and preen over their latest bipartisan compromise.

Rev. Wright may be proven a prophet after all. America’s chickens are coming home to roost . . . in a train wreck.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Live to spend, spend to live

Vice President Joe Biden sticks his foot in his mouth so often that he's developed athlete's tongue. The news flash comes when Biden doesn't say something eccentric, unpredictable, or just plain stupid. So it was no great revelation to hear he'd accused Tea Party Republicans of behaving like terrorists during the debt limit debate. It's also no surprise that he denied making the comment that everyone within earshot clearly heard.

That's just Joe being Joe, right? He has a long history of uttering inanities at the worst possible moment. Sometimes his gaffes unintentionally reveal hidden truths. While Biden was merely blowing his usual hot air with his "terrorist" comment, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) can't make the same claim. He pulled a "Biden" in the same meeting, and inadvertently revealed a not-so-secret truth about Washington politics.

Doyle also called congressional conservatives -- unquestionably an endangered species -- terrorists. But he went a step farther, revealing far more about the D.C. mindset, and the Democrat Party, than he intended. Opined
Rep. Doyle, "This small group of terrorists have [sic] made it impossible to spend any money."

Impossible to spend any money? If that doesn't summarize the bedrock problem in both Washington and the Democrat Party, what does? The United States faces annual budget deficits of more than $1.5 trillion, a national debt at
98-percent of GDP and growing, unfunded liabilities (SSI, Medicare, etc.) in excess of $114 trillion, and a reduction in our credit rating. Those realities should offend everyone. But a politician complains about the possibility of not spending the taxpayer's money. No wonder America's fiscal house is in such disarray.

Of course, you can blame Republicans for overspending, too. And you'd be right. But for Republicans, overspending is born of cowardice. They're afraid of being blamed for cutting a favored program, or of receiving unfavorable press. Therefore, they sacrifice genuine Republican principles on the altar of federal largess. For Democrats, spending doesn't result from cowardice; it's an addiction.

Ironically, Doyle's comment is completely bogus. Tea Party supporters aren't terrorists and they haven't made it impossible to spend money. In fact, the day hasn't been invented when Washington experienced difficulty spending. Running a deficit? Spend some money. A recent debt ceiling increase? Spend more money. Demonize your enemies, perhaps by calling them terrorists? Spend still more money.

Theoretically, Doyle's intent was to demonize the few conservative Republicans that still remain in Washington. But he has committed a "Biden." While attempting to slander a political opponent, Doyle exposed his party's soul, and that of Washington overall. Politicians live to spend and spend to live. They are drawn to the next federal program like a heroine addict to the next injection. Mike Doyle has affirmed the obvious; being a Democrat is to scorn fiscal discipline and financial restraint. If only fewer Republicans shared his view.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Big bark, little dog!

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is like a little dog, maybe a dachshund. She charges her adversary, teeth barred and yapping viciously, until realizing the other dog is larger. The realization sends her scurrying for cover, where she yelps, snarls and whines. While this analogy may seem ridiculous, it perfectly illustrates Schultz’s “confrontation” with Rep. Allen West and her political persona in general.

Schultz bit Rep. West during a speech on the House floor. Well, more like she nipped him on the heel. She never mentioned West by name, yet he was obviously her target. During a rambling, platitude-laced diatribe about the debt ceiling, Schultz accused Rep. West of denying Social Security checks and Medicare payments to senior citizens. West responded directly to Rep. Schultz, telling her exactly what he thought of her unprofessional tactics. Like a yapping, obnoxious little dog, Schultz tucked her tail and ran for the cover of her supporters, who were quick to oblige.

The President of Emily’s List, Stephanie Schriock, issued a thinly disguised fund-raising message in which she described West’s response as angry, threatening, sexist, and demeaning. “We don’t have to tolerate this kind of behavior,” she wrote, demanding a formal, public apology from Rep. West.

However, it was Schultz’s choice to play rough. She wasn’t genteel, professional, or ladylike toward Allen West. Rather than face West directly, Schultz hid behind the House microphone and her leftist supporters. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, like a dachshund, proved to be all show. She barked a good fight, but that was all. Schultz should’ve heeded West’s admonition to “shut the heck up.” But once safe from West, she feigned ferocity once again.

Schultz accused House Republicans of using the debt ceiling debate to establish a
dictatorship. Conservatives, she charged, planned to inflict pain and suffering on as many Americans as possible. How she arrived at this conclusion is anyone’s guess. But logic played no part in Schultz’s accusation. It seldom does. She was again the angry dachshund on the attack, barking loud, creating commotion, becoming an annoyance, and accomplishing nothing.

Rep. Schultz can play the tough poser. But the threat she presents is as miniscule as her understanding of dictatorships.

Dictatorial powers are invested in a central figure, not a legislative body. No dictator worthy of the title allows outside forces to exercise more than a token influence on governmental decisions. Dictators rule without regard to outside opinion. Anything resembling a deliberative body is a smokescreen, a rubber stamp. And there’s no room for citizens’ representation.

Schultz can sniff all she wants. She won’t find the dictator’s mindset among genuine Conservatives. But, ironically, her
Democrat colleagues seem ready, even eager, to yield dictatorial powers to the Executive Branch.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) finds nothing controversial or inconsistent about a Democrat President unilaterally bypassing the representative body. He’s not alone; other Democrats echoed Clyburn’s sentiments. In fact, many Democrats have encouraged President Obama to act unilaterally in spending the public’s money and increasing the public’s indebtedness. True, Obama himself hasn’t acted on his colleagues’ wishes. But he's made it clear, in his own
words, that wielding absolute power has entered his mind.

The seeds of dictatorship are present in Rep. Schultz’s party. A Democrat president dreams of making his own rules while alleged representatives encourage him to assume authority his office doesn’t legally possess. Did Schultz fail to notice her colleagues’ support for authoritarian rule, or conveniently ignore it? Perhaps she’s too busy barking at imaginary dictators to focus her attention on the tyrannical attitudes residing within her own party. Or, more likely, she shares their thirst for despotism.

Rep. Schultz is the perfect example of an absurdity. She’s a belligerent party hack with a blind eye for the obvious. She possesses the courage of a Doberman when unopposed, but can shrink into a whining whelp at a moment's notice. Like a dachshund, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a general nuisance who makes a big show, does nothing, and runs for cover when challenged.