And his name is John Culberson.
It may be that Culberson County, a barely populated (less than one person per square mile) region in the far western part of Texas, gave Representative John Culberson a leg up in the name recognition department, when he applied to represent the metropolis of Houston, for he's no bright light. How do I know that? Because I just got a missive with the subject heading
It's Time to Cup, Cap and Balance
addressed to "Dear Friend," despite the fact that I'm an out-of-district critic. You'd think that a person, who's been on Capitol Hill for ten years and in the Texas House for fourteen years before that, would be able to hire staff who proofread the emails they send out. But then, his
official biography still contains typos.
Culberson is obviously not a detail man. So, perhaps it's good he's no longer practicing civil defense law. Capitol Hill has proved a good venue for people whose "vision" and "advocacy" achieve nothing.
Nevertheless, since the "Jeffersonian Republican" who thinks the definition of government is to run things,
"Texans Should Always Run Texas!"
which probably resonates with people with visions of running cattle in their heads, is proud of his co-sponsorship of the "Cut, Cap and Balance Act" and wants to tout it, we might do well to attend.
When he writes,
Passing this bill shows our commitment to getting America back on the right fiscal track
Culberson is not even promising to get anything done (moving). He's got good intentions. Period. Oh, and faith:
I believe this legislation provides a common sense solution to our nation’s debt crisis.
Never mind that there's no crisis, unless you're a person that's scared of obligations (understandable in someone who's incompetent) and a figment of the imagination (the nation) can't have a crisis we can or need to solve.
Culberson's touting legislation that
adopts a three-step-program consisting of immediate and significant spending cuts, capping spending for the next 10 years, and adopting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to force the federal government to live within its means.
The word "adopt" is obviously meant to resonate with people who think of abortion, which they hate, as its opposite. Adopting is good and a "three-step-program" is better than the ten steps with which many of his supporters are probably familiar. On the other hand, yet another amendment to the Constitution by an agent of the federal government is little more than a plea to "make me do the right thing." Poor Culberson, he probably believes that, if it's in the Constitution he'll do what it says, even though he's hell-bent on ignoring most of the obligations it already contains, starting with providing for the general welfare.
But perhaps there's a clue in 'them thar' verbs. There's obviously a world of difference between providing or provisioning and simply running a herd -- or a government. Running cattle is an extractive and exploitative enterprise, which depletes the environment, as is pumping oil out of the ground--a taking--in contrast to investing or giving something up front.
It's taken some time for us to recognize that the conclusions from cost/benefit analyses are often flawed, because the costs and benefits aren't realized by the same entities, which accounts for the steady transfer of public assets into private wealth without much notice until after the deed is done. That "give and take," the essential components of economic behavior are often similarly disjointed (some people always give and other people always take) has also taken a good long while to become apparent. Probably that's because giving persons don't really notice the takers, until there's suddenly nothing left for them to give.
That would explain why so many people give their support to politicians who turn around to cheat and abuse them by taking their money and giving it to someone else.
When Culberson concludes,
it is beyond debate that Washington’s profligate spending is ruining our nation’s economy
he's stating half a truth. Spending money is not debatable because that's what money is for. But, the city of Washington, no more than the "nation" (also a figment of the imagination), is not doing the spending. Managing the public purse is a Congressional function, specifically of the House, of which Culberson is a member. If
Priscilla Mullins were still alive, she'd have cause to repeat the injunction to "speak for yourself, John," but it wouldn't be friendly.
When Congress diverts money that's been collected from the public into the coffers of private commercial enterprise, it's doing exactly what the parable of the "Unjust Steward" warned about. Writing down the debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund is pandering to their masters' (our) debtors (commercial corporations) in the expectation that they'll enjoy a soft landing when they get sacked from their stewardship. Jesus seemed to express some admiration for the foresight of the unjust steward. Though, considered in light of His attitude towards people who "bury" their money (talents) instead of using it for its intended purpose, to spend, there can be little question that the appropriate use of money was a central concern.
Money is to be spent and man's soul is to be saved. Moreover, if the love of money causes it to be stored up and saved, then the soul is at risk. You'd think that would be easy for the bi-lateral conservative mind to understand.