Just in case you lost track, the government is still shut down (well, the parts that are interesting or help people, anyway), and it looks like we’re headed for a credit default in, oh, nine days or so. They (normally I’d say “whoever they are” but it seems like “they” are pretty much everybody except for a few crazy teabaggers) say this will be devastating to the global economy.

Failure by the world’s largest borrower to pay its debt — unprecedented in modern history — will devastate stock markets from Brazil to Zurich, halt a $5 trillion lending mechanism for investors who rely on Treasuries, blow up borrowing costs for billions of people and companies, ravage the dollar and throw the U.S. and world economies into a recession that probably would become a depression. Among the dozens of money managers, economists, bankers, traders and former government officials interviewed for this story, few view a U.S. default as anything but a financial apocalypse.

Well, that doesn’t sound all that bad.

I suspect most of the globe will be OK in the long run – they’ll just learn once and for all that we have made ourselves irrelevant and they need to bypass us as much as possible, even if we are a little crazy and dangerous. We’re like that crazy uncle who used to be rich but now hangs out in a soiled t-shirt and boxer shorts sitting on the front porch with a shotgun threatening kids, birds and squirrels and telling stories about the old days when he really used to be something. You might have to keep inviting him over for Thanksgiving, but you sure as shit aren’t gonna give him the keys to your car or let him babysit your kids.

I feel as though I should care more about all of this, and be out there working hard to prevent it all (by which I mean “signing” e-petitions and all that other stuff that’s really pretty meaningless in the long run). The relative handful of crazy House Republicans that are holding the government hostage and are poised to make my life more difficult (and most likely make it impossible for me to ever retire) don’t give a shit about petitions. I’m not sure what it is they really care about or want, and apparently neither do they.

But man, what a feckless waste of spray tan that John Boehner is, eh? He wins the Michael Brown award for incompetence. It’ll be interesting to see if all this leads to the Democrats taking back the House in 2014. With the way Congressional districts are gerrymandered, that would be quite a legacy for Boehner and the T-bags (good name for a band). That’s assuming there’s anything left of the country – let alone the government – when all this is over.

The Irish just had a vote on whether or not to abolish their Senate (they voted to keep it). Maybe we should do something similar, though I’m not sure which part of the legislative branch of government we’d be better off without. On the one hand, it seems silly to me to give Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Montana with a combined population of less than 28 million people a total of 12 votes in the Senate while California, with over 38 million people gets only two. Then again, that House elections can be so rigged that one party can be outvoted by over half a million votes and still have control (and, in turn, then be controlled by 60 something teabag nuts) is pretty shameful.

So here’s what I say we do. We get rid of both branches, and create a Senate of Representatives. Every state (and even the District of Columbia) gets one Senate Representative. After that, for every million people in your state, you get another one. So Alaska with 700,000’ish people? You get one. Delaware with 917,000? Ooh, so close. But you only get one. Maine? 1.3 million – congrats, you get two. And California? You’re the big winner with 39.

The other part of this plan speaks to how these Senate Representatives are elected – and that’s statewide. No gerrymandered districts drawn to keep one party or the other in office. This will make for some interesting ballots in places like California. I think what we’ll need to do is stagger the terms a bit, in order to avoid a crowded and all but incomprehensible ballot in states with a lot of people. So some of the initial seats will start with partial terms until we get this all up and running. Assuming we stick with 6-yr terms, in, let’s say, California, 13 seats will have 2-yr terms, another 13 four years, and the rest 6 year terms. That way, after the first time around, a third of the seats get elected every two years.

By my reckoning, at 2012 population rates, that gives us a legislative body with 335 members (as opposed to a total of 535 now – 435 House and 100 Senate). So we’d save 100 salaries (plus staff salaries), office costs, etc. It’s a win-win all the way around.