Let's make shutdown permanent

Among leading Republicans, all the talk is about how foolish the Ted Cruz-led "extremists in the Republican Party" are to be playing right into Barack Obama's hands and jeopardizing the party's prospects for the 2014 elections. That's right, to hell with principle, just follow RINO Rule No. 1 and cast the vote you think has the best chance of helping you (and other Republicans) get re-elected.

RINOs are becoming panicked over the possibility of being thrown out and having to get real jobs. After all, a recent article in the Huff Post said the government shutdown has "[forced] about 800,000 federal workers off the job and suspended most nonessential federal programs and services."

Question: Why are programs that are "nonessential" being funded in the first place? Is it because the federal government is rolling in cash? Last I heard, the federal government is drowning in debt!

Even so, establishment Republicans worry about the impact of the 800,000 federal workers who have been temporarily laid off. But why? Unlike the private sector, back pay is a given when it comes to government employees being suspended or temporarily laid off. It's the equivalent of a paid vacation.

What this country needs is to lay off 800,000 workers permanently. Eliminate unemployment benefits, food stamps and all other welfare payments, and it would force them to get real (i.e., productive) jobs in the private sector.

TRENDING: Thongs in the U.S. Senate

If you like fantasies, just try to imagine a world with no Environmental Protection Agency. Permanently padlocking the EPA's doors would, all by itself, cause the economy to explode. National parks and museums? No problem. Sell them to private interests and use the money to pay down the national debt.

Ditto with the U.S. Postal Service, which has been a money-losing joke since its inception in 1775. I say, sell the USPS to Fed Ex or UPS and, again, use the money to pay down the national debt.

In his newest book, Robert Ringer goes to bat for the most maligned and beleaguered individuals in America. Don't miss "The Entrepreneur: The Way Back for the U.S. Economy"

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments are about all the load the federal government can handle. Plus the military, provided it's restricted to protecting the homeland. Don't you love congressmen who argue that this or that military base should remain open because closing it would result in civilian employees being laid off? That's right, you've got to keep those military bases open – not to protect the country, but to provide incomes for their civilian employees.

It was hardly a surprise when one of the Republican Party's leading progressives, Mush McCain, recently announced, "We can't win." For good measure, he added that "sooner or later" the House had no choice but to agree to the Democrats' demands for a simple funding bill that would reopen the government.

Really? No choice but to give in to Democratic demands to continue spending and borrowing? Sorry, Mush, but you always have a choice. And the choice between drawing the line and being fiscally responsible or allowing the far left to continue to destroy what's left of the U.S. economy is an easy one: Don't give in!

Mush, let me give you a scenario whereby the Republicans could actually win against the Dirty Dems. If the pro-liberty guys in the party would have the courage to stick to their guns and find a way to keep their frightened colleagues on board, they could put the Dirty Dems in a box that even BHO would have trouble spinning.

Ted Cruz is on the right track. Just keep passing more funding bills and precipitate another hundred or so Dana Bash (CNN) incidents. After Harry Reid said to Ms. Bash, "What right do they have to pick and choose what part of government's going to be funded?" Bash, a devout left-wing campaigner for BHO, then asked him, "But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?"

Whereupon Reid exploded and chastised one of his own for her impertinence. (Oh, and by the way, Harry, those upstarts in Congress not only have the right to pick and choose what parts of government should be funded, it's their duty!)

Obama and his lackeys are masters at projecting blame on those who oppose spending the U.S. into third-world oblivion. But, as with military pay, if the Republicans had the guts to pass one funding proposal after another, Obama and the Democrats could be boxed into the unfamiliar position of being viewed as cruel and calloused if they refused to cooperate.

If the Republicans kept at it, they could get all of the "essentials" funded, without having to fund any nonessentials. Then there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling, because all of the essential government functions would be covered.

Sure, those who are affected, like employees of the dreaded EPA, would scream foul, but it wouldn't matter, because they're in the minority. Which means that mushy Republicans don't have to give an inch to the Dirty Dems. Polls already show that a majority of Americans say they have not been affected by the shutdown.

That said, I'm not naïve enough to believe that Obama would suddenly give up on his dream of transforming the United States into a Marxist gulag. I concede that he's the absolute best when it comes to convincing the public that it's those extremists who cling to Constitution who are to blame for every problem he has created, and he will continue to successfully make that case to tens of millions of low- and no-information voters regardless of whether or not the government shutdown is prolonged or the debt ceiling is raised.

I appreciate the argument that Obamacare is going to fall apart even without a long-term government shutdown and even with another debt-ceiling raise, but it will happen a lot sooner if the government remains partially shut down and the debt ceiling is not raised.

Again, however, Republicans will be blamed either way, so why not do the right thing and say no to tyranny right here and now?