It’s time to fire everyone

According to various surveys, members of Congress are among the least popular creatures in the known galaxy. They’re statistically less popular than head lice and gonorrhea. They’re less trusted than used car salesmen and crack dealers. Surveys show them as more despised than migraines, traffic jams, and maggots. They are universally loathed and derided for being dishonest, dysfunctional and deeply incompetent. These feelings are entirely warranted. We are teetering on the edge of calamity, and all these clowns do is tussle over who gets to be the one to finally drive the train over the cliff. My children were born into a bankrupt nation run by deviants and sociopaths. Congress is largely to blame. If a greater collection of self obsessed buffoons and petty narcissists have ever been assembled on planet Earth, I’m sure it must have been in Sodom and Gomorrah. And we now how well that worked out.

So far, you likely agree with everything I’ve said, even if you think I should be nicer about it. Yet, of those who are on board with any criticism I can throw at Congress, most won’t agree with this part: We need to vote out the career politicians. All of them. Both parties. They have overseen the destruction of this nation — as well as a few other nations — and they need to be fired. I’m not talking about the ones who just got there. Many of them are just as atrocious, but there are a few young bloods who seem to have a real desire to change things. The rest? Screw ’em. Why do we even need to discuss this? We’ve become so drained of our revolutionary spirit that millions of us will actually vote for congresscrooks that have done nothing but spend money and destroy liberty for DECADES. They need to be fired. All of them. ASAP.

Are you still with me? Maybe you’re shaking your head ‘yes,’ but when push comes to shove will you actually cast your ballot against the oligarchs? Even if it means the other party might win? Even if it “splits the vote”? Even if it seems politically risky?

Here’s what drives me absolutely insane: On virtually a daily basis I will find myself in a conversation with a fellow disgruntled citizen. The exchange will go something like this:

Fellow citizen: “Man, Matt, things are bad. You know, I think we might need a revolution”

Me: “Well that can be avoided if we just use the ballot box, vote out the long term incumbents, and vote in some fresh and ambitious liberty lovers.”

Fellow citizen: “Yeah that would be nice. But there’s no way to get rid of some of these guys.”

What?! You just speculated about an armed overthrow of the government but then dismissed the possibility of simply voting for different people? That’s like if you said you wanted to climb Mount Everest naked and I countered by suggesting a clothed jog around the block, and you scoffed at my idea, calling it “unrealistic” and “dangerous.” A recent poll revealed that a full 29 percent of Americans think an armed revolution “might be needed.” How is that possible in a nation where Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John McCain and Charlie Rangel still have jobs? How could anyone dream of a violent fight for freedom, and then go vote for Lindsey Graham? How can we so desire change, yet allow Barney Frank to hold office for three decades and then retire with a pension?

This is why I can’t stomach all the talk about “term limits.” A survey a few months ago showed a staggering 75 percent of Americans in support of term limits. Bull crap. These 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 year tenured congressmen don’t just sprout out of the ground like mushrooms. They don’t crawl from the bowels of the Earth like sound-bite spewing demons. They are voted into office. Again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Have you ever said you’d like to have term limits? If so, have you recently voted for someone who has been in office since The Dark Side of the Moon went gold? If so, you don’t want term limits. You want Rulers and Kings, and that’s what you’ve got.

Don’t tell me that voting doesn’t “work.” We’ve never tried it. At least not recently. This thing where we stumble into the booth like zombies every few years and cast our ballot for the establishment candidate — that’s not voting. That’s just a stagnant and hollow tradition that results in nothing and changes nothing. The elites remain, and they remain because we choose to keep them there. Period.

Why are we doing this to ourselves? Saint Paul had an answer: “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” Someone engrave that and hang it on the wall at every polling station in America for the next election. I also think this phenomenon can be blamed on the usual suspects. Collectivism, ignorance, fear, cowardice. I guess all of those things are one and the same.

Like it or not, Congress is a reflection of the American people. The anger we harbor for them is really anger at ourselves. These politicians should be unemployed, many of them should be in prison with the other murderers and thieves, trading cigarettes for extra packs of Ramen Noodles. Instead, they’re up on Capitol Hill, trading your child’s future for power and influence.

End the madness. Vote out the elites, or stop complaining about them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to It’s time to fire everyone

  1. Aaron says:

    I disagree about your comment on term limits. While it is true that it is possible to always vote out the incumbent it isn’t likely. It’s not really within our nature. If you check out the TED talk by Dan Ariely “Are we in control of our own decisions?” it is very interesting to see the participation rate for organ donations. When faced with a difficult decision most people decide to NOT decide. To vote for someone other than the incumbent means that you are deciding that this person will be better than the one that has already done the job. It really is impossible to know ahead of time if one candidate will be better than another. That new will simply be better than the old. Therefore they will generally vote for what they already know (or simply vote all Democrat/Republican). This isn’t true in all cases, but it happens often enough that we get the lifetime politicians.

    If 75% of Americans voters would vote for term limits then there couldn’t be lifetime politicians. They could still vote all Republican/Democrat on the ticket and not need to know any more than the general beliefs of their designated party. The difficulty on their part would be the same, the outcome would be new blood in office. No, we don’t know if it will be any better, but at least it won’t be the same.

    It is possible for us to vote lifetime politicians out of office. It is possible for us to do this every single time. It is also possible for us to forget, or enough of us to forget, and to let someone stay in for much longer than is in our best interest. Term limits don’t require us to do this, they make lifetime politicians an impossibility. And its just as easy for us to vote for that once, so it applies every time, up until the point that we vote to repeal term limits.

    • gramps says:

      So term limits would make it easier on us because we wouldn’t have to THINK!!?? I believe that’s part of the problem of why were are where we are now.

      • Aaron says:

        I guess you could interpret it that way if you wish. What is better, that our current non-thinking keep lifetime politicians in office? Or that we manage some thoughtful voting and at least agree (75% of us at least) that term limits are a good idea?

        Term limits do not preclude us from thinking in the future about who we vote for. It would force us to think about it more, because we couldn’t go with what was “good enough” in the past.

      • FeatherBlade says:

        The fun thing about voting people out of office is that you ~don’t~ have to think about it. It’s easy: you vote for anyone on the ballot who is not the incumbent. And there are usually sufficient challengers that you can vote against the incumbent and still vote by party lines, if you wish.

        This is how I’ve been voting since I was old enough to do so. It hasn’t made much of a difference, because I’m the only one doing it this way (as far as I know), but around election season I always encourage people to vote for anyone who is not currently in office.

    • Brad Thomas says:

      Term limits are a false solution. Until more citizens are better informed and more active in the political process, they will just replace one politician with another of the same ilk. Another problems with term limits is that at any given time, at least half of Congress will be “lame ducks”, meaning that they have no further motivation to please their constituents because they cannot serve another term. Much of the biggest spending occurs after the November elections when Congress members are finishing out their terms if they were not reelected.

  2. Well said. I had the joy this last election of voting against my supposedly conservative, Republican congressman. I voted for his Libertarian opponent, and I was joined by… well… tens of others. Naturally, despite his voting for No Child Left Behind and the CF Bulb ban, ignoring numerous constituents’ posts against the NDAA Authorization’s provision for allowing detainment of US citizens simply by executive fiat, and kow-towing to the Boehner compromises all too often — our establishment candidate won by a landslide. There’s the problem. Every man hates congress but loves his congressman. Hearing Karl Rove trying to derail one of the better of the “young bloods,” Justin Amash, while the left continues its never ending chiseling at our freedoms makes the situation seem nearly impossible. Why? So-called liberals aren’t the problem. It’s conservatives that continue to fill congress with the likes of McCain and Graham election after election.

    • truthseeker00 says:

      I’m afraid that conservatives are just as blind as liberals, and will readily confess to having been a life-long conservative. Now I think I am apolitical. I believe both parties play the good cop/bad cop game to make people think that they have a choice. In reality, no matter which party you support, you get more government, less money and less liberty. The right has been brainwashed by the likes of Buckley & friends for decades, and for all of their talk, they really serve the same master as the left – power and money.

  3. gramps says:

    Well done again, son! The ‘term limits’ issue is one that gets me riled up, too. You can’t have term limits until you limit the insane retirement packages that all these imbeciles get– otherwise you’ll just be adding larger numbers to the pigs at the trough. The other, more difficult battle, however, is the myriad non-elected ‘public servants’ entrenched in and around D.C. The political class is the real enemy of freedom!

  4. I agree with your evaluation, with the exception of one detail, which you danced very close to but did not actually light upon. I believe that the election process in America is nonfunctional. It has been so jerryrigged that we rarely get a candidate that is worthy of our vote. Those who have destroyed our economy and voided our constitution have also made sure that the ‘right’ people make it far enough to land on the ballot. We essentially get to choose between two equal evils. With the introduction of electronic voting, the potential for corruption is unlimited – and is occurring. We have a lot to undo, and I am not sure it is ‘undoable’, but those in power are not going to just walk off into the sunset. I have never pushed for armed revolution, nor do I desire it, but it sure is going to take something major to overturn the system. I’m starting with prayer, but to tell the truth, I’m not sure how to pray for a nation that has essentially rejected God and His ways. Much as I hate to see it, it appears ‘the nations’ are being left to their own desires, and are getting what they want – complete godlessness. I, for one, long for the day when God stands up and says ‘Enough!’, but we may be in for a wild ride until that day arrives.

  5. Jack Colton says:

    I’d do two things: 1) Campaign finance / lobbyist reform. 2) Require everyone running for any political office at a certain level to pass a proficiency test that covers the basic knowledge they should know. As it is, you have to pass a BAR exam to be a lawyer, but apparently any idiot can actually make the laws.

  6. srbboo says:

    I can count on two hands the Senators and Congressman that I would keep. The rest I say “Vote them off the island!”

  7. Mary Adams says:

    Matt: You Rock! I agree 110%. I must truthfully say, I have voter apathy. and its for this very reason. Career Politicians HAVE TO GO! If people would wake up and realize they have better insurance than we on the outside, yet they do nothing to help those in need. Just a bunch of horn swaggling lyin, yellow bellied cowards. I know we got a Governors race coming in Texas and oh whats her name has thrown her name in the hat. not going to vote for her.

  8. misfit120 says:

    The problem with “fire everyone” is that in every state the populace thinks their congressmen are doing a great job. It’s all the other congressmen in all the OTHER states that they think need to be fired.

  9. MamaBearJune says:

    Wow, Matt, I love everything you write! You write how I’ve thought about so many subjects! Glad my friend posted a link to your blog. I’ve enjoyed every post.

  10. Barbara C. says:

    “I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, that two become a lawfirm, and that three or more become a congress.”

    -John Adams

  11. Jon blank says:

    The biggest issue is Democrats and Republicans voting for their party no matter who is running. When Romney made his 47% comment he was making the point that no matter who the Democrats ran they would receive 47% of the vote. Till that changes you will get the same candidates running again and again, hopefully the tea party can get back some momentum to save the country

  12. sj says:

    Your blog is very interesting – despite or because of all the hyberpole? – I haven’t decided.

  13. Vance Phillips says:

    Matt, Could you please offer audio versions of these daily blog posts? They should be made available on your website along with a podcast of your shows. I’d gladly pay a membership fee for this convenience. Call it MATT24/7. Vance from Sussex County

  14. Michael says:

    I believe that the makeup of congress was intended to be completely different than it is today. It should be made up of normal, but successful and prevalent citizens of your state and county. Doctors, teachers, insurance salesmen, etc… These people are deeply connected to your community and are an intimate part of it. The congressman from my district has retained his seat for years. He might as well be a citizen of DC. He is not connected to the interests of the area other than convincing us every couple of years to rehire him, and is completely out of touch with what his job really is. I would love to see a shorter term limit and a departure from this idea that a congressperson has to be a career politician.

  15. Jarrod East says:

    This sounds great, in the ideal, sense. But as with so many seemingly easily-solved riddles, the solution is very short-sighted. What are we trying to resolve with Term Limits? Corruption, Corporate influence, removing the money from Washington? How does Term Limits stop this cycle, when in fact, the revolving-door of Aide, to Congressman, to Lobbyist, to Think Tank Legislation creator will only be sped up by the Term Limits?

    You see, we are all compelled by our inherent self-preservation. What type of person will gladly give up the stable, steady life they are creating at home, to go to Washington for 4-8 years, only to be left on the street with no reassurance of future success? This lack of future self-preservation is what makes Term Limits unrealistic.

    Matt, you are quite politically astute. Would you be willing to forgo the career you are trying to establish, and risk the future of your wife and 2 kids, to go to Washington, with the stark realization that your entire life would have to restart after that 4-8 years??? No? So what you are saying is, there would have to be greater incentives than to take a job which you could not progress and build stability upon.

    Therefore, for Term Limits to work, we would have to pay those Congressman much more during their short tenure. Maybe we would have to guarantee some sort of more aggressive pension (they currently contribute 8% of their salary with a matching 8% as a Federal benefit in order to receive a % of their Pension, which only starts at 20 years of service). However, I am sure, with your populist rants, that you already think these people make too much, and want to get rid of their pension entirely. So then what?

    Well, you will not pay Congressman appropriate compensation relative to the Public Sector (the average CEO makes $1 MILLION per year, while our POTUS makes $450K). Therefore, without adequate compensation for the risk of giving up their current life, you will leave these people to the whims of the Lobbyists and Corporations. During that 4-8 year term, these Congressman will almost certainly pass whatever Legislation is necessary to ensure their families’ future self-preservation once they have no career.

    Either that, or you simply will not attract the best and brightest minds into Washington. Maybe some people will willingly put their life on hold and future earning potential at risk by going to Washington for the starting Congressional pay of $125K a year. But I am sure NOT ONE of my College educated buddies would be willing to take that gig, particularly because most of us make more than that today, yet have much more future growth and stability. So tell me what are our options?

    • Steve says:

      So you’re advocating for professional politicians, to be paid at professional levels?
      I disagree with your post. There are many out there who would gladly serve this country, without the need for emulation of the excessive remuneration of the corporate upper class. Isn’t the need for self-enrichment one of the current ills of Congress, yet you’d advocate making this a permanent feature of the political class? Ridiculous. And I’m all ears waiting to hear which job in the private sector guarantees a four to eight year employment with an 8% retirement match, and months of PTO a year.
      Frankly, I’m sure that if your “college buddies” have the same “what’s in it for me” attitude that you have, they wouldn’t have to worry about becoming members of Congress: hopefully smart people would see them for what they are and wouldn’t elect them.
      I don’t have a solution, but I can see you don’t either.

  16. Aaron says:

    Ah, you beat me to it Steve.
    Anybody who can’t handle their finances enough that they can’t make a life out of $450K per year but they could do so off of $1 million shouldn’t be in charge of our nation’s finances in the first place. Both are ridiculously lavish amounts of money. Once you get to that level, the extra money won’t matter, or greed has taken over and no amount will be enough. Military members potentially sacrifice much more for much less money and benefits. Most aren’t “lifers” either, instead putting in 4-8 years to serve their country. And the U.S. military is a volunteer one (non-mandatory), so they are doing this by choice. These are people who are putting their lives and careers on hold for 4-8 years. There are plenty of executives who only work at a single company for 4-8 years. Most careers nowadays aren’t lifelong. Pension plans are far less common. Most people are expected to go through 3 major career changes in their lifetime. Experience you get from one job can still carry over to another, even if in an unrelated field. Or do you think that the experience one would get working in Congress wouldn’t transition at all to the private sector. If that’s the case we have far more to fix than I realized.

  17. For YEARS I have said we need to fire everyone up there and start over with people who really CARE about our country and not their personal agendas. I also think it’s time to start the COMMON SENSE movement.

  18. Right Wing Nutter says:

    Effective kicking out the deadwood requires more work than just voting. Unfortunately, electing a member of the opposite party to the incumbent is almost always a worse option than letting him/her waltz to reelection. In our increasingly polarized electorate that would be true for both sides I think.

    To effectively vote out a long term incumbent squish you have to get involved in the party machinery some election cycles before you can accomplish that. You have to find enough people who feel like you do to invade and take over local party machinery and elect delegates who also agree with your politics and policies. When enough local party organizations so agree then you (collectively) can replace the incumbent in the primary or caucus process and hopefully beat the other party’s nominee.

    That’s how the left gained control of the Democrat party apparatus. That’s how the Tea Party is trying to gain control of the Republican party. The left remembers well how how they got to be in charge, and that’s why the IRS and the FBI were deployed to suppress Tea Party efforts the last two election cycles.

    Booting the career politicians out onto K Street is a desirable outcome, but accomplishing it involves way more than just voting and some precinct walking and envelope stuffing.

  19. Misty Foster says:

    I have to admit that I laugh out loud while reading most of your posts. “They’re statistically less popular than head lice and gonorrhea. They’re less trusted than used car salesmen and crack dealers. Surveys show them as more despised than migraines, traffic jams, and maggots. They are universally loathed and derided for being dishonest, dysfunctional and deeply incompetent. These feelings are entirely warranted.” Great word pictures, great imagery, and great explanation!

  20. Christina says:

    I agree 100%! And we can back that up in our household, having voted across the board against the incumbents, regardless of all of the “you’re wasting your vote” nonsense that we heard from practically everyone. Love your blog!

  21. This is great, although these immoral politicians also will still come out as victor even if a majority votes against them – you think they’re going to count votes fairly? Who counts the votes and how they’re accounted for could be a bigger problem than what the voters are actually voting for on their ballots.

  22. Josh says:

    I can safely say I’ve never voted for a career politician or any politician I didn’t believe in. But Matt, I think talking about it is almost as useless as voting for a corrupt career politician just so “our side” will win. I know that most conservatives, if they voted at all in the last two elections, voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney, two career politicians just like those you decry. But why can’t more people like you, or AlfonZo Rachel, or John Hawkins, or Steven Crowder, or Lee Doren, or John Nolte, or Michelle Malkin, or Dana Loesch, or even Ann Coulter just freakin’ run for office? Some of these people, and you, for that matter, might suggest that once you’re in office, you’d suddenly be without the ability to communicate your real message to the masses, or you think you don’t have what it takes to be a politician or something like that. I say bull to that. You clearly have a real grip on reality and have ideas on how to fix the mess we’re in. I recently saw Brock Lawley make a video begging Dr. Ben Carson to run for president. And Ben Carson would make a GREAT president. But Brock, man, why aren’t you running for anything? Maybe not president, but why not start local? And don’t be afraid of becoming a “career politician” yourself. Instead, remind yourself and your staff daily about WHY you’re doing this, and remind yourself that YOU are not the reason you’re running. If you achieve public office remind yourself that YOU are not the reason you have this job, and YOU are not the primary reason to hang on to it.

    Now, it’s true, some people just don’t make good politicians period. I’m one of them; I would SUCK as a senator, congressman, mayor, city council member, etc. let alone president. But what I do well is write. And while I might principally write fiction, I realize the power that allegorical fiction can have. Currently we have far-left writers, screenwriters and filmmakers polluting the entertainment culture with hyper-leftist messages and draping them in enough drama and emotional appeal that people start accepting them and applying them to reality. Why can’t more conservatives do that? I’m working on a novel for that very purpose right now (and to entertain, naturally).

    But Matt, I seriously think you could affect some great change as a politician. Young you may be, but there are offices you can run for now. Go for it, and help us have someone there to vote in after we vote the corrupt RINO’s out.

Comments are closed.