What Happens When The Checkbook Doesn't Balance?

There is a price to pay.

For younger readers (and it warms my heart to state that we have quite a few) it is incumbent upon me to provide a brief, and most rudimentary, history lesson.

Nine zillion years ago there were these pieces of paper that had your name, address, phone number and bank information on them. They were a uniformed size and came in a little horizontal book. That book was called a “checkbook” and the pieces of paper inside were called, you guessed it, “checks.”

You would use the checks like you now use your debit card or phone “tap to pay.” Checks required verification of identity (usually a driver license) and a written signature or “endorsement.” A signature was your name written in an ancient manual artform called “manuscript.”

Debit cards eliminate the need for the signature and the identification. The only thing required is a “PIN” (Personal Identification Number). “Tap to pay” or TTP requires, well…nothing other than the electronic device/phone and though it is my inclination to burrow down that rabbit-hole, I shall leave that pleasure to you. If you are reading this you clearly are in possession of the requisite intelligence to arrive at logical conclusions.

In any event, at regular intervals—normally at the end of the week or month—you would have to take out another relic called a pen, better make that pencil, and reconcile the checks. In other words, the money that you started that period with would have to match the amount you spent. To the penny.

If your checkbook did not balance, meaning the amount you recorded did not match the bank’s statement, it usually meant there was a miscalculation, omission, or bank transaction you had not accounted for. An unbalanced checkbook would lead to many problems. Problems like credit & reputation damage, along with a plethora of others.

That was probably as painful as the proverbial “dad joke” but I had to do it, here’s why.

No Checks, No Balance

There are three branches of the United States government. Oddly enough, only two-thirds of Amerikans (66%) can name all three branches of the U.S. government. Those branches being: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This oddity, or malady, is mirrored by the fact that the percentage of Amerikans that vote is virtually identical depending on the type of election.

In the 2024 Presidential Election, 65.3% of eligible US citizens voted. This is slightly lower than the 66% turnout in 2020, but still considered among the highest in recent history. Once again, percentages fractionally vary depending on the type of election.

We Three Kings, Ain’t No Such Thing

The “US” system of checks and balances was supposed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful by allowing each branch to limit the power of the other two. This system was to ensure a balance of power within the federal government. This system of checks and balances, along with the separation of powers was, in theory, to ensure that no single branch could dominate the government. It was, albeit auspiciously, designed to prevent tyranny and protect the rights of the people. Which people? What people? Who defines “the people?” How’s that working out?

Congress—particularly the GOP—has become the political equivalent of a bounced check. They were written into the Constitution to provide oversight. They now provide cover. Investigations stall, subpoenas are ignored, hearings turn into circus acts with no lion, no ringmaster, just clowns. The judiciary, supposedly the “adult in the room” and the final ledger of whatever mythologized civic truth, now swings like the stock market. Volatile, ideological, and increasingly beholden to partisanship rather than principle.

As for the executive branch and its God-king? There may as well be a bunch of methheads with guns running that show. They have extorted and blackmailed the entire flimsy system. A fact to which I am not only unsurprised, but one I anticipated.

Bankruptcy: Moral and Otherwise

Each year we hear the ubiquitous phrase "bankrupting our children's future." The phrase is pertinent to governmental fiscal matters and the annual, perpetual, “budget crisis.” Its propagandized concern: that current actions are creating a legacy of debt, limited resources, and diminished opportunities for young people. The Republican part of the U.S. political party duopoly-monopoly is particularly fond of this mantra. It's allegedly a call to consider the long-term consequences of Amerika’s choices and to prioritize investments in the future well-being of children and young people.

A, sō desu ka?

Say It Ain’t So

In his vision to “Make Amerika Great Again” (as if it ever was) Smitty, in true coward fashion, has proposed cuts to funding for children, the elderly, the poor and the sick (be that illness mental or physical).

When it comes to children he has proposed cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which could result in reduced access to healthcare for children, particularly those with disabilities or complex medical conditions. His proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, could lead to increased food insecurity for children and families. Potential changes to the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) could make it harder for eligible children to enroll or lead to reduced benefits. And last, but hardly least given his imbecilic nature, he has proposed cuts to education funding that will negatively impact children's learning and development.

When it comes to the elderly, like him, he proposes cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) that could affect older Amerikans who rely on these benefits after experiencing a disability. Consistent with his wanting to starve children in a nation that throws away more food than any two nations on this planet, he proposes reductions in SNAP funding which will make it more difficult for seniors to afford groceries. He wants the elderly not only to starve, but starve outdoors; his proposed cuts to housing assistance programs could leave thousands of seniors without vouchers that help them pay rent.

When it comes to poor and vulnerable populations, unlike him, he proposes reductions to Medicaid that could lead to millions losing health coverage and increase healthcare costs for many, disproportionately impacting low-income individuals and most individuals in the socioeconomic strata look far different than he does. He triples down on starving them with significant cuts to SNAP that could worsen food insecurity for low-income families and individuals. Proposed cuts to housing and rental assistance programs, including public housing and housing choice vouchers, could increase homelessness and housing instability. Proposed elimination of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) could leave millions of low-income households struggling to pay for heating and cooling.

"You can tell a society by how it treats its children and old people."

The Real “Darkie”

The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision fundamentally altered campaign finance law by ruling that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising independently of candidate campaigns. This decision effectively eliminated restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions, leading to a significant increase in "dark money" and outside spending in elections. Ergo, unless Amerika realizes that is not Smitty himself, but the systems, laws and institutions that preceded him it is absitively, posilutely guaranteed far worse than an unbalanced checkbook.

Am I correct in recalling that the now divorced (at least on the surface) couple of Smitty and Elon Musk-Rat love’s illegitimate political child was named “Dark MAGA?”

That supreme court decision was part of Smitty’s political gestation period. Long before Smitty came into being this society bore him. It bore him with apartheid, genocide, infanticide, matricide, fratricide and sororicide. It bore him with Jim Crow. It bore him with white supremacy. It bore him with apathy, misogyny and misandry. It bore him with theft, greed and a sense of “god given” entitlement. How anyone of the most modest intellect can feign surprise at his existence as other than a logical outcome is nothing short of mind bending.

The thing that fascinates me most about the United States is not the Declaration of Independence, that did not apply to men like me. Not the so-called Bill of Rights. Not the so-called “founding fathers” as they sure as hell were not mine. Not its warmongering and violent nature. Not its greed. Not its exploitation and apathy. Not the nebulous concept of “freedom. Not “exceptionalism” though it is, indeed, exceptional in terms of things that run counter to human decency. The thing that impresses me most about the “US” is how it managed to pull this horrific bovine feces off for five centuries.

Whatever the unsolved mystery, that time has come to an end and it is personified in the 45th and 47th president of the “US”—President Donald “Smitty” Trump. Smitty, as I affectionately refer to him, is the culmination of that five centuries and I could have portended his presence today five centuries ago. He is the natural, and logical, product of a rogue nation. Or, as Thomas Jefferson said of “the tree of liberty,” Smitty is its “natural manure.”

Oh shit.

Insufficient Funds

The “US” is, literally, in the red. It is bankrupt morally, fiscally, intellectually and spiritually. Smitty is the mirror of your society being held before you. The inability to look at the image is deeply concerning to this writer. Because if I look in the mirror and see Rachael Welch I am delusional. Period. Paragraph.

White folks love Martin Luther King, after murdering him. He is now an “acceptable” Negro—mainly because he is dead. No such glory awaits me, neither here nor in the afterlife as I will never be an “acceptable” Negro. Not ever. I’ve seen too much.

Nonetheless, in his "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. King said “America has given its colored people a bad check, a check that has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice.

He used the metaphor of a "bad check" marked "insufficient funds" to represent the unmet promise of equality and justice for Black People in the United States. This metaphor refers to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, which were like a promissory note. They guaranteed rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Amerikans. However, King argued that Amerika had not kept this promise to its citizens of color, effectively giving them a check that was worthless.

Amerikans, whether they know it or not, are the account holders here. And while the MAGA base cashes its outrage dividends and the rest of the electorate stares in horror or apathy, the global community watches. Investors lose faith. Allies hesitate. Enemies, which are now most of the world, take notes. Eventually, the bank wants its statement reconciled.

There is always a reckoning. The books may not balance today, but the ledgers are being kept. Every precedent set, every oversight dodged, every lie repeated as if it were gospel—all of it is entered in ink, not pencil. And when the day of reconciliation comes, and it will, we shall see whether this nation was running a democracy… or just an elaborate Ponzi scheme of denial and delay.

By the by, the last three letters of the word “think” are…