Let’s get back to the principles on which our country was founded!

Back in the days when our nation was founded, only white men who owned land could vote. That means rich white men with money controlled the political system, calling all the shots. Okay, that part hasn’t changed.

In our first presidential election in 1788, the only people the Founders decided could vote were…well, they were NOT women, NOT blacks, NOT poor white men, and in many states, NOT Catholics or Jews.

But then we got on a slippery slope away from the principles on which our country was founded.

Over time, some states abandoned the landowning requirement, thus enabling poor white men to vote. Religious restrictions were also lifted, thereby bringing Catholics and Jews to the voting booth.

When the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, black Americans finally won the right to vote. Fortunately, in order to stick to our founding principles, True Patriots invented poll taxes, literacy laws, and other measures to keep black voters away. But it was only a matter of time before liberal judges undermined these well-intentioned efforts and cleared away any impediments to black men voting.

Four amendments later (19th), we gave women the right to vote. We had slid most of the way down the slope. Now all that remained was to give voting rights to pets, farm animals, and corporations.

When people romanticize the beliefs and practices of our Founding Fathers, and how we need to get back to our roots, I tend to groan. America evolves, mostly in good ways. The Founders got us off to a fabulous start, but they were fallible men locked in a particular period of time with its own peculiar sensibilities. Going back to our roots is, in many ways, going…well, BACKwards.

So thank you, guys, for launching the USS America. But I have no desire to return to the America of 1776. We’ve come a long way, mostly in the right direction. And somehow, I think you’d all agree.

I suspect that the Founders themselves would NOT want to return to those roots.

Besides, they wore wigs and stockings. Who wants to do that?

Many years ago, I listened to a cassette teaching tape by Jill Briscoe. She was talking about empowering the laity. She said pastors and wives too often do things themselves, because they figure they can do it better than any of the available volunteers. But that’s the wrong approach. She said something like this:

“If they can’t do it well, let them do it poorly.”

This principle, believe it or not, actually came to my mind with the sequester. A result of crossed synapses firing simultaneously.

We know we need to cut federal spending. But the White House, the Senate, and the House are afraid to make spending cuts because it might cost them votes. Which, of course, would trigger the Apocalypse.

The sequester took it out of their hands. It’s an irresponsible way to make cuts, but it’s apparently the only ways cuts will get made.

We’re a couple days into the sequester, and we’ve now experienced two record-setting days on Wall Street. So I’m wondering if the principle is:

“If they can’t reduce spending responsibly, let them do it irresponsibly.”

Or, as Larry the Cable Guy would say, “Just git r done.”

About this sequester thing: there’s a part of me which, the more I hear the administration cry “Doomsday!”, the more I wonder if it might turn out more like YTK. That is, nothing much happens. We just end up with lots of basements full of freeze-dried food and stockpiled ammo.

The feds obviously need to cut spending, but nobody’s up to the task. So maybe, if they can’t cut spending responsibly, let them cut it irresponsibly.

On the other hand, this may turn out to be one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever said.

This came to me from a friend in Canada. I’m not going to even try to verify the numbers. They may be a couple years old, anyway. But that’s beside the point. The analogy with the household budget stands, regardless of how much people might want to quibble over actual numbers.

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

Get the picture?

So once again we come to the State of the Union Address, otherwise known as the Night of Empty Promises. At least President Obama can grandstand in a much more literate manner than his predecessors. Just looking for redeeming value.

I predict:

• There will be lots of clapping.
• Clarence Thomas won’t attend.
• Mitch McConnell won’t be caught smiling.
• John Boehner, sitting behind the president, will impart an orange glow.
• The camera will frequently pan to an over-enthusiastic Nancy Pelosi.
• On no domestic issues will Democrats and Republicans stand to applaude at the same time.
• Marco Rubio’s response will be pretty good.
• Joe Biden will be fighting to stay awake.