Today, during a presidential news conference, a reporter asked President Obama why he didn’t just tell the Congress they had to lock themselves in a room until they came to an agreement about the sequester that we are told is going to harm the country. The president’s answer was that he is not a dictator and therefore can’t do that kind of thing.
Just a few days ago, I told my husband that if our kids had been squabbling about something and blaming each other the way the Congress is doing, I would tell them they had to stay in the bedroom of their choice (where there are no TVs) and not come out until they had worked out a compromise. If the argument dragged on past bedtime, they had to work on it the next day with no TV, cell phones, games, friends, or outings until the problem was solved. Their allowance would be discounted for each day the argument was resolved.
He chuckled and said, “Doesn’t work that way with Congress.”
That’s more or less the same thing the president said. It’s not the president who tells the Congress what to do, it’s the voters. It’s a cumbersome process, though, and doesn’t get immediate results. The law that brought about the sequester was passed with the idea that serious budget cuts that would harm the country were something politicians would never allow. They would come to agreement before the law took effect. Didn’t work, did it?
What this country needs is not a dictator, but a mom. One who, at the end of the day, after working and juggling a dozen other duties, is in no mood to put up with immature antics. (There’s another word for that, and it begins with s and ends with t.)
Any mom knows that when you are dealing with immature people, you don’t get them to act by taking things away from someone else. You ground them. Take away THEIR perks and privileges. Stop their allowance, or in this case, their salary, until a reasonable compromise is reached. Couldn’t we have a law that worked that way? We could call it the “Mom Act.” Or maybe the “I’m Not Putting Up With Anymore Of This S. . t Law.” Read More
Just a few days ago, I told my husband that if our kids had been squabbling about something and blaming each other the way the Congress is doing, I would tell them they had to stay in the bedroom of their choice (where there are no TVs) and not come out until they had worked out a compromise. If the argument dragged on past bedtime, they had to work on it the next day with no TV, cell phones, games, friends, or outings until the problem was solved. Their allowance would be discounted for each day the argument was resolved.
He chuckled and said, “Doesn’t work that way with Congress.”
That’s more or less the same thing the president said. It’s not the president who tells the Congress what to do, it’s the voters. It’s a cumbersome process, though, and doesn’t get immediate results. The law that brought about the sequester was passed with the idea that serious budget cuts that would harm the country were something politicians would never allow. They would come to agreement before the law took effect. Didn’t work, did it?
What this country needs is not a dictator, but a mom. One who, at the end of the day, after working and juggling a dozen other duties, is in no mood to put up with immature antics. (There’s another word for that, and it begins with s and ends with t.)
Any mom knows that when you are dealing with immature people, you don’t get them to act by taking things away from someone else. You ground them. Take away THEIR perks and privileges. Stop their allowance, or in this case, their salary, until a reasonable compromise is reached. Couldn’t we have a law that worked that way? We could call it the “Mom Act.” Or maybe the “I’m Not Putting Up With Anymore Of This S. . t Law.” Read More