Tuesday was a good day for two GOP congressional candidates in special elections, one in Nevada and one in New York. Do these victories give Republicans even more momentum going into next year’s presidential elections? What does this mean for Democrats? More analysis on that later day, for now, here is a brief synopsis of the news coming out of both Nevada and New York.

From New York (Wall Street Journal):

Democrats suffered an embarrassing setback Tuesday in a congressional election in New York City, where voters in a district they had held for nearly a century elected a Republican who framed his candidacy as a rebuke to President Barack Obama.

The GOP candidate, Bob Turner, was declared the winner Tuesday night over Democrat David Weprin in an out-of-season contest to succeed Rep. Anthony Weiner, who resigned following a scandal over sexually charged messages he sent to women he met online.

With almost all of the election districts reporting, Mr. Turner had 54% of the vote to Mr. Weprin’s 46% in the 9th congressional district that includes parts of Queens and Brooklyn.

A former television executive with no political experience, Mr. Turner had sought to make the race a referendum on Mr. Obama’s record, and it propelled him to victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1.

In Nevada (From RGJ.com):

Republican Mark Amodei, a former state GOP chairman and state senator, easily defeated Democratic state Treasurer Kate Marshall on Tuesday to become the U.S. representative for most of Nevada, including Washoe County.

“I’m looking forward to going back and getting to work right away … and getting that message delivered and turning that tide,” Amodei said during a victory speech before more than 250 supporters at a Reno casino.

Marshall called Amodei about 9 p.m., with about 42 percent of the vote counted, to concede the U.S. House District 2 race to her Republican foe. A Democrat has never won the 2nd District since it was created after the 1980 census.

When I was a kid, one of the most powerful ads I saw on TV—this must go back 40 years—showed two old men grappling with each other like wrestlers while a circle of onlookers cheered for one or the other.  The idea was to show that if old men fought wars, instead of soldiers, we might not have as many wars.

That Vietnam-era ad came to mind this week as the politicizing of the debt ceiling issue roiled markets across the globe, led to the downgrading of U.S. Treasury obligations, and threatened the fragile recovery.

It gave me an idea.

What if we brought all the service people home from Iraq and Afghanistan to run the government, and what if we sent everyone running the federal and state governments to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight on the frontlines of the war?

No matter how you feel about our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ve got to admit that our troops are superb.  They’re well-trained, dedicated, imbued with love of country, and are willing to lay their lives on the line for the rest of us.  They embody the notion that “freedom isn’t free.”

At the same time, never have we raised a more slothful, indolent, self-serving, borderline useless group of individuals as those we have somehow elected to federal and state office.

The only difference between the way government officials run the United States and the way they run Italy, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain is…um, well, nothing.  There is no difference.  The people in our nation’s Capitol have pretty much spent all of our nation’s capital.  Especially in the last few weeks, they have done the seemingly impossible—destroyed the last shreds of self-respect and dignity that the United States used to enjoy in the  community of nations.

That’s why I say it’s time for a role reversal.

If the government were run by people who loved the country, like our service people, it would be a different world.  Work would get done on time and under budget.  There’d be a spit-shine on senators’ shoes, instead of the rest of us wanting to spit on them.  The business of government would be handled as adroitly and expertly as these brave young men and women handle their missions on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, if you took these lazy slobs running the country—the real welfare kings and queens—put them in uniforms, outfitted them with weapons, and sent  them into harm’s way, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be over in a New York minute.

Think of the savings.  We’re spending billions of dollars a day in these foreign lands, and for what?  Breathes there a soul this side of David Petraeus who truly believes the Afghanistani “army” will be able to defend itself from the Taliban?  You might even have some money left over to defend U.S. borders, instead of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The trouble with war is that the people who sign on to it are seldom confronted with the reality of the battlefield.  And the trouble with government is that the people who spend our money seldom have to go out and earn it.

This reminds me of Jackie Mason’s line about Congress.  “You know why there’s a deficit?  Because the Senators are all paid salaries.  Put them on commission.  That’s why they’ve never had a profitable season.”

Most Americans whose fortunes are tied to the wild fluctuations of the stock market haven’t been sleeping well these days.  But it seems like Congress has been sleepwalking to the edge of the precipice, and into the abyss.

It’s no longer enough to send them packing for home.  Let’s send them packing for Kandahar.  And let’s take advantage of the training, acuity, and dedication of our service people, by letting them run the country.

If you take one look at the people running our country and running our states, the evidence is irrefutable.

They couldn’t make things worse.

New York Times bestselling author Michael Levin runs the Orange County, California-based business ghostwriting service, www.BusinessGhost.com.

The economic downturn of 2008 – 2009 has been labeled “The Great Recession” for good reason. Eight million Americans lost their jobs compared to six million in the last four recessions combined dating back to 1980. The jobless recovery may trigger a double dip recession in 2011. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimates that homeowners’ equity has fallen by over 50 percent, or about six trillion dollars, during this period. Some 22 percent of all mortgages are now under water. And, economists predict that between eight and 13 million homes will have been foreclosed before the crisis ends.

The eight million jobs lost during the Great Recession were primarily in the private sector.  While the private sector was ravaged, the public sector was protected and bolstered by the $800 billion Stimulus Bill (3) in 2008 that sent more than $200 billion to the states to keep public sector employees employed. The Stimulus money that California received allowed California to avoid the job cuts demanded by a state budget more that $20 billion out of whack.

Ironically, it will be the actions of the Tea Party, a movement that had no significant affect on California’s 2010 election, that will impact California’s future. While the Tea Party swept more than 60 Democrats out of the Congress in 2010 and replaced them with freshman conservative Republicans, there was no such sweep in California. Democrat Governor Brown easily won his election as did Barbara Boxer and literally every Democrat running for state-wide office.

The vote in the House of Representatives, led by the freshman Republicans, will reduce Federal spending by $2.1 trillion over ten years. The framework would immediately cap domestic and defense spending. These changes will find their way to California and signal the end to Sacramento’s budgetary fiction that the Federal government will bail out the wasteful spending of state politicians.  California will be forced to solve its budgetary shortfalls the same way as their federal counterparts – with less money than before.

The period following The Great Recession will be known as “The Great Deconstruction” and will usher in draconian cuts in public sector jobs and a reduction in size of California’ s government. Deconstruction is defined as the wholesale elimination of entire programs, their permanent funding and the jobs involved.

Robert J Cristiano PhD is the Real Estate Professional in Residence at Chapman University in Orange, CA, Senior Fellow at The Pacific Research Institute and President of the international investment firm, L88 Investments LLC. He has been a successful real estate developer in Newport Beach California for thirty years.