Contemplating a mixed bag of regimes from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal to Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile and Suharto’s Indonesia, political scientist and novelist Lawrence W. Britt looks for characteristics shared to varying degrees by fascist regimes. These include:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected. A
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
"Does any of this ring alarm bells?" Britt asks. "Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not."
The rest of the story: Fascism Anyone? by Laurence W. Britt
National Health -- Why It's Needed
In the last three and half years, during the reign of George W. Bush, the number of Americans without health care has increased by about five million. The cost of health care has metastasized at about 7% a year. That is twice the growth rate of the GNP. The longer this trend continues, the more people there will be without health insurance at all.
The injury to the economy is staggering. Already, at least 15% of GDP is absorbed by health care. Premiums for health insurance provided by employers have risen by more than 11% this year alone. Few employers can bear a hit like that, especially year after year, and many are forced to eliminate health coverage, to cut it back, or to shift the burden onto employees in the form of higher co-payments and deductibles.
Of the uninsured, more than 20 million are working full time.
The strain of covering workers also has led would-be employers to hold back on hiring, slowing the economy further.
Candidate Bush has reluctantly addressed the issue by proposing to offer tax credits to low-income people to help pay the cost of health insurance; and by calling for an expansion of the Health Savings Accounts program passed by Congress earlier this year to enable participants to put pre-tax money into savings plans similar to 401(k)s.
People using the shelter are forced to buy health insurance with high deductibles (at least $1,000 a year for an individual, $2,000 for a family). High deductibles, which shelter insurance companies from paying for routine medical care, are intended to hold down premiums (if you are paying a high premium on a policy carrying a high deductable, you're permitted to enquire if this works), but by discouraging doctor visits for minor illnesses and preventive care they end up adding to the cost of health care in the long run.
In theory, money from a tax-free savings account would be used to pay deductibles, and could build up over time, but the idea begs several questions, most notably where it is low-income people are going to get the money for their premiums, let alone how they will be able to find resources to build up savings. Bush says he wants to make premiums tax deductible as well. And he'll tackle the soaring cost of malpractice insurance with tort reform, long-sought by sectors of the business community, by for example capping awards for pain and suffering, fine unless you're the one experiencing the pain and suffering.
Bush's plan is expected to cost about $90 billion over 10 years, small potatoes compared to the cost of his war.
Candidate Kerry's proposal will cost 10 times as much or more, but it will cover 10 times as many people, as many as 27 million who aren't protected now.
Kerry would cover these expenditures by rolling back the Bush giveaways to taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year.
Kerry will create a government insurance pool to cover 75% of the cost of any individual claim that exceeds $50,000. Lower premiums for employers, it is hoped, will encourage more businesses to offer coverage, but there is no guarantee. Also, the senator would allow ordinary citizens to subscribe to the health coverage enjoyed by federal employees, such as members of Congress. And he would broaden Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
It goes without saying that Kerry's plan is a non-starter without Democratic control of both houses of the legislature, looking not likely as we make the turn into the home stretch of the campaign.
How much effect either plan would have on the heath care cost spiral is questionable.
The politicians focus on the price of health care, ignoring the fact that there are always more products and procedures to pay for and for much longer periods. Once upon a time, if you had hypertension, say, or high cholesterol, you lived with it -- without taking expensive drugs for decades on end -- until it killed you, that turn of events acting as a further brake on health costs.
The number of tests ordered by doctors has increased exponentially in the past decade. Whether this is because doctors are fearful of litigation for being "negligent" or because they're feathering their nests hardly matters here; the point is, the price to the consumer of the individual components of health care is only one factor affecting the cost.
If your health care is more costly but the length and quality of your life is also vastly improved, it does occur to you to wonder about the ROI. Though making health care affordable is vital to this country's continued progress, it may help to temper the tone of the debate if it is kept in mind that, given the extraordinary progress in the improvement of health care, it isn't extraordinary that it costs more than it used to.
Calculating the worth of health care is not easy. If your roof is leaking, you can figure out what it is costing you in damaged possessions or lost value, get estimates from a few reputable contractors, and make a reasonable decision about how fix it.
Most medical problems are far more subtle than a leaky rook, but even when the need is evident and immediate, as in the case of a broken leg, say, there is no way that you can be expected to shop sensibly either for the best price or even the best contractor. If you're insured you have no motivation to get the best price -- that's the insurer's problem, and they have probably made the decison about who you can hire to do the repairs.
It's clear that, in this as in most things, the enlightened and responsible choice in November is Kerry, not Bush. But it is equally clear that health care is not an issue that is going to be decided by the election. On the Wednesday after voting day, it will be time to start a new round of debate -- and, one hopes, on the part of the MoveOn.Orgs and True Majoritys a renewed enthusiasm for organizing -- on national health.
The injury to the economy is staggering. Already, at least 15% of GDP is absorbed by health care. Premiums for health insurance provided by employers have risen by more than 11% this year alone. Few employers can bear a hit like that, especially year after year, and many are forced to eliminate health coverage, to cut it back, or to shift the burden onto employees in the form of higher co-payments and deductibles.
Of the uninsured, more than 20 million are working full time.
The strain of covering workers also has led would-be employers to hold back on hiring, slowing the economy further.
Candidate Bush has reluctantly addressed the issue by proposing to offer tax credits to low-income people to help pay the cost of health insurance; and by calling for an expansion of the Health Savings Accounts program passed by Congress earlier this year to enable participants to put pre-tax money into savings plans similar to 401(k)s.
People using the shelter are forced to buy health insurance with high deductibles (at least $1,000 a year for an individual, $2,000 for a family). High deductibles, which shelter insurance companies from paying for routine medical care, are intended to hold down premiums (if you are paying a high premium on a policy carrying a high deductable, you're permitted to enquire if this works), but by discouraging doctor visits for minor illnesses and preventive care they end up adding to the cost of health care in the long run.
In theory, money from a tax-free savings account would be used to pay deductibles, and could build up over time, but the idea begs several questions, most notably where it is low-income people are going to get the money for their premiums, let alone how they will be able to find resources to build up savings. Bush says he wants to make premiums tax deductible as well. And he'll tackle the soaring cost of malpractice insurance with tort reform, long-sought by sectors of the business community, by for example capping awards for pain and suffering, fine unless you're the one experiencing the pain and suffering.
Bush's plan is expected to cost about $90 billion over 10 years, small potatoes compared to the cost of his war.
Candidate Kerry's proposal will cost 10 times as much or more, but it will cover 10 times as many people, as many as 27 million who aren't protected now.
Kerry would cover these expenditures by rolling back the Bush giveaways to taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year.
Kerry will create a government insurance pool to cover 75% of the cost of any individual claim that exceeds $50,000. Lower premiums for employers, it is hoped, will encourage more businesses to offer coverage, but there is no guarantee. Also, the senator would allow ordinary citizens to subscribe to the health coverage enjoyed by federal employees, such as members of Congress. And he would broaden Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
It goes without saying that Kerry's plan is a non-starter without Democratic control of both houses of the legislature, looking not likely as we make the turn into the home stretch of the campaign.
How much effect either plan would have on the heath care cost spiral is questionable.
The politicians focus on the price of health care, ignoring the fact that there are always more products and procedures to pay for and for much longer periods. Once upon a time, if you had hypertension, say, or high cholesterol, you lived with it -- without taking expensive drugs for decades on end -- until it killed you, that turn of events acting as a further brake on health costs.
The number of tests ordered by doctors has increased exponentially in the past decade. Whether this is because doctors are fearful of litigation for being "negligent" or because they're feathering their nests hardly matters here; the point is, the price to the consumer of the individual components of health care is only one factor affecting the cost.
If your health care is more costly but the length and quality of your life is also vastly improved, it does occur to you to wonder about the ROI. Though making health care affordable is vital to this country's continued progress, it may help to temper the tone of the debate if it is kept in mind that, given the extraordinary progress in the improvement of health care, it isn't extraordinary that it costs more than it used to.
Calculating the worth of health care is not easy. If your roof is leaking, you can figure out what it is costing you in damaged possessions or lost value, get estimates from a few reputable contractors, and make a reasonable decision about how fix it.
Most medical problems are far more subtle than a leaky rook, but even when the need is evident and immediate, as in the case of a broken leg, say, there is no way that you can be expected to shop sensibly either for the best price or even the best contractor. If you're insured you have no motivation to get the best price -- that's the insurer's problem, and they have probably made the decison about who you can hire to do the repairs.
It's clear that, in this as in most things, the enlightened and responsible choice in November is Kerry, not Bush. But it is equally clear that health care is not an issue that is going to be decided by the election. On the Wednesday after voting day, it will be time to start a new round of debate -- and, one hopes, on the part of the MoveOn.Orgs and True Majoritys a renewed enthusiasm for organizing -- on national health.
Murals on Ocean Park
Before we had the chance to thank the Santa Monica city staff for finally cleaning up the artworks under the Fourth Street overpass on Ocean Park Boulevard -- and before the restorers could provide the paintings with protective sheathing, both works were attacked anew by taggers.
It will be a shame if again this situation is left unaddressed for ages, as it was until the city's recent effort. Leaving a couple of tags unchallenged on these murals resulted the last time in an explosion of activity that included not only dozens of assaults on the pieces themselves, but also in the vandalization of homes, walls, sidewalks, cars and storefronts throughout the neighborhood.
Already, on the murals themselves, the situation is worse than it was before the cleanup. The three or four scripts of a month ago have been joined by a dozen more, including three the size of golf carts that will be very difficult and expensive to repair. Together, these calamities might as well be an advertising billboard announcing that the neighborhood is ripe for vandalizing.
Someone -- the city, the Main Street Merchants, OPCO, art activists, this newspaper -- should take up the cause of these murals before it's too late. The work on the north side, depicting the escape of the horses from the carousel on the Santa Monica Pier, is a treasure that especially deserves protection. Let's turn photographs of the new tags into wanted posters, offer a cash reward for turning the perpetrators in. And when the little monsters responsible for these desecrations are finally caught, let's hold them -- and their parents -- responsible for the cost of restoration.Appeared as a letter to the editor in the Santa Monica Daily Press, also inspiring the paper to run a front page picture of the mural graffiti earlier the same week. (For these and other comments on the issue, visit SM Daily Press, June 26-27, 2004).
It will be a shame if again this situation is left unaddressed for ages, as it was until the city's recent effort. Leaving a couple of tags unchallenged on these murals resulted the last time in an explosion of activity that included not only dozens of assaults on the pieces themselves, but also in the vandalization of homes, walls, sidewalks, cars and storefronts throughout the neighborhood.
Already, on the murals themselves, the situation is worse than it was before the cleanup. The three or four scripts of a month ago have been joined by a dozen more, including three the size of golf carts that will be very difficult and expensive to repair. Together, these calamities might as well be an advertising billboard announcing that the neighborhood is ripe for vandalizing.
Someone -- the city, the Main Street Merchants, OPCO, art activists, this newspaper -- should take up the cause of these murals before it's too late. The work on the north side, depicting the escape of the horses from the carousel on the Santa Monica Pier, is a treasure that especially deserves protection. Let's turn photographs of the new tags into wanted posters, offer a cash reward for turning the perpetrators in. And when the little monsters responsible for these desecrations are finally caught, let's hold them -- and their parents -- responsible for the cost of restoration.Appeared as a letter to the editor in the Santa Monica Daily Press, also inspiring the paper to run a front page picture of the mural graffiti earlier the same week. (For these and other comments on the issue, visit SM Daily Press, June 26-27, 2004).
"I call it my...I-Feel-Your-Pain...Plan"
Last year's congressional financial disclosure forms reveal that among the 100 senators at least 40 admit to being millionaires (of course, these figures don't take into account those who will become rich after their internships in Washington, once they are promoted to positions as lobbyists and executives for the industries they currently are charged with overseeing).
Although the magoos are fairly evenly divided between the parties (22 in the GOP, 18 from the so-called Party of the People), the three wealthiest solons are Democrats: John Kerry, whose net worth of at least $164 million makes him the richest (and who, being married to the mega-rich Theresa Heinz Kerry, should probably be listed, rock star-style, as "number 1 with a bullet"); Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl, who has at least $111 million; and John "Jay" Rockefeller of West Virginia, worth at least $82 million.
The House of Representatives, whose sessions also might be accomplished more fittingly at Bohemian Grove, similarly includes no fewer than 123 millionaires, or nearly a third of its 435 members. [To make a parochial aside, for those of you who have wondered why Venice, California Representative Jane Harmon so often takes positions contrary to the interests of her district, it may help to know that she is the wealthiest person in the lower body, with Kerry-esque assets reportedly worth more than 160 million dollars.]
No one begrudges these worthies their fortunes. Aside from those staked by ancestors, many worked hard to build up their car dealerships, extermination companies and mortuaries to where they could afford to retire to cushier environs.
It's just that their good fortune tends to put them at a distance from the too-much-month-at-the-end-of-the-money condition of so many Americans. That is, to take only one example, if we judge by the length of time, now more than half a century, that it has taken not to achieve a national health insurance policy (an inalienable "...right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health..." -- FDR, State of the Union, Jan. 11, 1944. See Impractical Proposals 9/2/2004).
Can we really expect stewards who have legislated themselves full health care coverage, huge expense accounts and ample retirement benefits, who work shortened weeks and only part of the year, and who have no need to balance checkbooks, meet payrolls or, for that matter, take out the trash, to effectively represent the interests of regular people?
You, too, would probably find an issue such as national health less pressing if you were similarly fixed.
There is, however, a simple reform that would transform congressional attitudes toward many of the issues that bedevil ordinary citizens: Elected officials should be paid an amount equal to the average wage of the folks who live in the area they represent.
Call it the I-feel-your-pain...Plan.
There are several ways to calculate what an average person makes.
Arbitrarily, let's take Oakland, California. According to government estimates, the median income for a household in that city is $40,055, and the median income for a family is $44,384 (we can only guess that the difference between a household and a family is children). The median income for males is $37,433 and $35,088 for females. The per capita income in the city is $21,936. 19.4% of the population and 16.2% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total people living in poverty, 27.9% are under the age of 18 and 13.1% are 65 or older.
Whether legislative delegates receive $44,000 annually or $40,000 or $37,433 or $35,088 or $21,936 will make little difference in the overall impact of the I-feel-your-pain...Plan, especially if they have to take care of their own health costs, travel expenses, etc., out of whatever, after taxes, they take home.
Nobody is trying to be unreasonable here. It's not as though anyone is suggesting they try to live on the minimum wage.
The positive impact on public policy should be obvious. Now, under I-feel-your-pain..., when they meet to consider such issues as trade policy, the minimum wage, health insurance, child care, public safety, schools, transportation, parks and rec, etc., members will do so with an immediate not to say visceral appreciation of the effect of their actions on average lives.
How many days from the convening of the first Congress after this plan is adopted do you think it will be before the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, say, or the Bush tax cuts are up for sober reconsideration?
The plan won't be difficult to organize administratively (although, with self-interest being the chief animator of public policy, it might be harder to enact even than national health). Upon certification of election, newly chosen pols will relinquish control over their finances to blind trusts (as you probably thought is already required, and as some indeed do). From then on, each will receive a salary equal to that of the average inhabitant of his or her district.
Nothing extra will be provided, although members will of course have the same access as the rest of the populace to food stamps, low cost hot lunches at community centers, usurious short term loans against future paychecks, and the many other advantages enjoyed by the poor.
Regrettably, new delegates to Congress will almost certainly have to move to more modest digs (they might even be forced to live in the District of Columbia!), but the experience of looking for the apartment they can now afford will offer them valuable insights when they come to legislate housing and lending policies. In fact, under I-feel-your-pain, not a few representatives will qualify for public housing, though waiting lists will in all likelihood preclude their moving into accommodations before their term is up.
Unfortunately, meager as the salaries of most congresspersons will be under the plan, a majority probably won't qualify for food stamps (to be sure will take a visit to the local Social Security office, where additional useful insights await).
Those fortunate enough to arrive in their new job already covered by health insurance will find more food for thought when they try to continue coverage with their new employer.
New members may need to scope out a way to get to the Capital by public transportation and they might want to educate themselves about the location of the nearest emergency room should, god forbid, they have an accident or fall ill.
Spouses will have to work, of course, and even members themselves may want to consider taking a second job.
It will probably be advisable at first to take a little extra time helping the kids adjust to public school.
Admittedly, for some members the transition will not be easy. Not to pick on poor John Davison Rockefeller IV (his not being responsible for the sins of the fa-, well, great-grandfather, and all), but let's say you are a senator from West Virginia. In 2002 (and wouldn't you know, you'll have to rely on figures that are a little behind increases caused by inflation), the per capita income in your state was $21,738, or $81,978,262 less than the cushion you're used to.
Going from a life of privilege to the life of the common man might take adjusting (it's possible some sort of counseling is available at a clinic in your new neighborhood, especially if a local benefactor has been found to fund it), but surely living on $30,000 a year will be less traumatic knowing you will go back to your old life when your term is up.
To take a more randomly chosen example, the representative from Illinois' 15th Congressional District will be living, like his average constituent, alas, on the district's per capita income of $19,524. In Oregon's 5th District, similarly, the per capita annual income is $22,307. Worst off will be the member from a largely Hispanic-immigrant district in Los Angeles where the per-capita income is $6,997 a year, although on the bright side the district will be rich in potential candidates among that portion of the citizenry who will perceive of the job as an opportunity to get ahead.
On the other hand, in a few cases being in Congress might not be bad at all: the member from Manhattan's Upper East Side will be raking in $41,151 per year, the average income in New York's "silk stocking" district. No doubt representatives from places like Carmel, Shaker Heights and Greenwich, Connecticut will do all right for themselves, too, or at least better than the US per capita income of $27,857 (among senators under I-feel-your-pain, Joseph Lieberman and Christopher Dodd will make the most -- $43,173 -- and Trent Lott and Thad Cochran the least -- $23,448, which seems only fair given their relative contributions to the public weal).
By comparison, the current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $158,100 per year. The leaders of both houses do better, $176,600 except the speaker who gets $203,000. A cost-of-living increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it (here's another comparison: the purchasing power of the aptly named minimum wage peaked in 1967). In addition, by their own hands Members of Congress receive generous retirement and health benefits. They can retire with 80% of their salary at 50 if they've served at least 20 years, and they can retire anytime after 25 years in office or their 62nd birthday.
This is not to single out the legislative branch. No part of the government comes near mirroring the economic makeup of the country. The Bush cabinet is the wealthiest in history, over 80 percent millionaires and nearly half with fortunes of more than $10 million, according to the Guinness Book of World Records. The members of the Supreme Court are not shopping at Wal-Mart, either.
Having demonstrated its efficacy at the highest level of government, the I-feel-your-pain...Plan can be applied to all elected offices: the Governor of Mississippi, for example, would earn $21,120 per year, a far cry from the next Mississippi ceo's $125,500. Being mayor of sunny Long Beach, California might seem like a pleasant enough job even at $19,040 per annum until you realize the current mayor gets $93,283.93.
Of course it can be contended that the I-feel-your-pain...Plan will discourage America's best and brightest from public service. But it can be argued with equal force that the proposal will make running for office more attractive to idealists and the public spirited. In any event, the point of I-feel-your-pain is not to address the sagacity of elected officials (there is an abundance of intelligence at every level of society), but their compassion (not so much); less about the qualities of governors, more about the integrity, the righteousness, of governance.
Although the magoos are fairly evenly divided between the parties (22 in the GOP, 18 from the so-called Party of the People), the three wealthiest solons are Democrats: John Kerry, whose net worth of at least $164 million makes him the richest (and who, being married to the mega-rich Theresa Heinz Kerry, should probably be listed, rock star-style, as "number 1 with a bullet"); Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl, who has at least $111 million; and John "Jay" Rockefeller of West Virginia, worth at least $82 million.
The House of Representatives, whose sessions also might be accomplished more fittingly at Bohemian Grove, similarly includes no fewer than 123 millionaires, or nearly a third of its 435 members. [To make a parochial aside, for those of you who have wondered why Venice, California Representative Jane Harmon so often takes positions contrary to the interests of her district, it may help to know that she is the wealthiest person in the lower body, with Kerry-esque assets reportedly worth more than 160 million dollars.]
No one begrudges these worthies their fortunes. Aside from those staked by ancestors, many worked hard to build up their car dealerships, extermination companies and mortuaries to where they could afford to retire to cushier environs.
It's just that their good fortune tends to put them at a distance from the too-much-month-at-the-end-of-the-money condition of so many Americans. That is, to take only one example, if we judge by the length of time, now more than half a century, that it has taken not to achieve a national health insurance policy (an inalienable "...right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health..." -- FDR, State of the Union, Jan. 11, 1944. See Impractical Proposals 9/2/2004).
Can we really expect stewards who have legislated themselves full health care coverage, huge expense accounts and ample retirement benefits, who work shortened weeks and only part of the year, and who have no need to balance checkbooks, meet payrolls or, for that matter, take out the trash, to effectively represent the interests of regular people?
You, too, would probably find an issue such as national health less pressing if you were similarly fixed.
There is, however, a simple reform that would transform congressional attitudes toward many of the issues that bedevil ordinary citizens: Elected officials should be paid an amount equal to the average wage of the folks who live in the area they represent.
Call it the I-feel-your-pain...Plan.
There are several ways to calculate what an average person makes.
Arbitrarily, let's take Oakland, California. According to government estimates, the median income for a household in that city is $40,055, and the median income for a family is $44,384 (we can only guess that the difference between a household and a family is children). The median income for males is $37,433 and $35,088 for females. The per capita income in the city is $21,936. 19.4% of the population and 16.2% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total people living in poverty, 27.9% are under the age of 18 and 13.1% are 65 or older.
Whether legislative delegates receive $44,000 annually or $40,000 or $37,433 or $35,088 or $21,936 will make little difference in the overall impact of the I-feel-your-pain...Plan, especially if they have to take care of their own health costs, travel expenses, etc., out of whatever, after taxes, they take home.
Nobody is trying to be unreasonable here. It's not as though anyone is suggesting they try to live on the minimum wage.
The positive impact on public policy should be obvious. Now, under I-feel-your-pain..., when they meet to consider such issues as trade policy, the minimum wage, health insurance, child care, public safety, schools, transportation, parks and rec, etc., members will do so with an immediate not to say visceral appreciation of the effect of their actions on average lives.
How many days from the convening of the first Congress after this plan is adopted do you think it will be before the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, say, or the Bush tax cuts are up for sober reconsideration?
The plan won't be difficult to organize administratively (although, with self-interest being the chief animator of public policy, it might be harder to enact even than national health). Upon certification of election, newly chosen pols will relinquish control over their finances to blind trusts (as you probably thought is already required, and as some indeed do). From then on, each will receive a salary equal to that of the average inhabitant of his or her district.
Nothing extra will be provided, although members will of course have the same access as the rest of the populace to food stamps, low cost hot lunches at community centers, usurious short term loans against future paychecks, and the many other advantages enjoyed by the poor.
Regrettably, new delegates to Congress will almost certainly have to move to more modest digs (they might even be forced to live in the District of Columbia!), but the experience of looking for the apartment they can now afford will offer them valuable insights when they come to legislate housing and lending policies. In fact, under I-feel-your-pain, not a few representatives will qualify for public housing, though waiting lists will in all likelihood preclude their moving into accommodations before their term is up.
Unfortunately, meager as the salaries of most congresspersons will be under the plan, a majority probably won't qualify for food stamps (to be sure will take a visit to the local Social Security office, where additional useful insights await).
Those fortunate enough to arrive in their new job already covered by health insurance will find more food for thought when they try to continue coverage with their new employer.
New members may need to scope out a way to get to the Capital by public transportation and they might want to educate themselves about the location of the nearest emergency room should, god forbid, they have an accident or fall ill.
Spouses will have to work, of course, and even members themselves may want to consider taking a second job.
It will probably be advisable at first to take a little extra time helping the kids adjust to public school.
Admittedly, for some members the transition will not be easy. Not to pick on poor John Davison Rockefeller IV (his not being responsible for the sins of the fa-, well, great-grandfather, and all), but let's say you are a senator from West Virginia. In 2002 (and wouldn't you know, you'll have to rely on figures that are a little behind increases caused by inflation), the per capita income in your state was $21,738, or $81,978,262 less than the cushion you're used to.
Going from a life of privilege to the life of the common man might take adjusting (it's possible some sort of counseling is available at a clinic in your new neighborhood, especially if a local benefactor has been found to fund it), but surely living on $30,000 a year will be less traumatic knowing you will go back to your old life when your term is up.
To take a more randomly chosen example, the representative from Illinois' 15th Congressional District will be living, like his average constituent, alas, on the district's per capita income of $19,524. In Oregon's 5th District, similarly, the per capita annual income is $22,307. Worst off will be the member from a largely Hispanic-immigrant district in Los Angeles where the per-capita income is $6,997 a year, although on the bright side the district will be rich in potential candidates among that portion of the citizenry who will perceive of the job as an opportunity to get ahead.
On the other hand, in a few cases being in Congress might not be bad at all: the member from Manhattan's Upper East Side will be raking in $41,151 per year, the average income in New York's "silk stocking" district. No doubt representatives from places like Carmel, Shaker Heights and Greenwich, Connecticut will do all right for themselves, too, or at least better than the US per capita income of $27,857 (among senators under I-feel-your-pain, Joseph Lieberman and Christopher Dodd will make the most -- $43,173 -- and Trent Lott and Thad Cochran the least -- $23,448, which seems only fair given their relative contributions to the public weal).
By comparison, the current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $158,100 per year. The leaders of both houses do better, $176,600 except the speaker who gets $203,000. A cost-of-living increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it (here's another comparison: the purchasing power of the aptly named minimum wage peaked in 1967). In addition, by their own hands Members of Congress receive generous retirement and health benefits. They can retire with 80% of their salary at 50 if they've served at least 20 years, and they can retire anytime after 25 years in office or their 62nd birthday.
This is not to single out the legislative branch. No part of the government comes near mirroring the economic makeup of the country. The Bush cabinet is the wealthiest in history, over 80 percent millionaires and nearly half with fortunes of more than $10 million, according to the Guinness Book of World Records. The members of the Supreme Court are not shopping at Wal-Mart, either.
Having demonstrated its efficacy at the highest level of government, the I-feel-your-pain...Plan can be applied to all elected offices: the Governor of Mississippi, for example, would earn $21,120 per year, a far cry from the next Mississippi ceo's $125,500. Being mayor of sunny Long Beach, California might seem like a pleasant enough job even at $19,040 per annum until you realize the current mayor gets $93,283.93.
Of course it can be contended that the I-feel-your-pain...Plan will discourage America's best and brightest from public service. But it can be argued with equal force that the proposal will make running for office more attractive to idealists and the public spirited. In any event, the point of I-feel-your-pain is not to address the sagacity of elected officials (there is an abundance of intelligence at every level of society), but their compassion (not so much); less about the qualities of governors, more about the integrity, the righteousness, of governance.
Election Fun: The "Give Bush a Brain" Game
Funny, frightening and addictive!
<http://www.beatgreets.com/view.pd?i=178792028&m=1361&rr=y&source=bg999>
<http://www.beatgreets.com/view.pd?i=178792028&m=1361&rr=y&source=bg999>
I'm just saying...
If you're a true Republican, you'll vote for Kerry (headline, article by Pete McCloskey, San Jose Mercury News, 2004-09-10).
Reform: Progressive Democrats of America
From a position of powerlessness at the Democratic Convention springs this proposal:
"We are committed in word and action, both personally and politically, to justice and democracy at all levels, and to the preservation and restoration of natural ecosystems in America and worldwide....We are specifically committed to the realization of new models for achieving local, national and global security that redirect the current wasteful and obscene levels of military spending toward the uncompromising and effective funding of: health and education programs; an end to discrimination; the provision of full and meaningful employment; and an end to poverty for all people....To achieve these goals, we dedicate ourselves to work within the general framework of the Democratic Party and with sister organizations to create a new, democratic, grassroots-based, nationally federated organization." -- from the website. <http://www.pdamerica.org/>
"We are committed in word and action, both personally and politically, to justice and democracy at all levels, and to the preservation and restoration of natural ecosystems in America and worldwide....We are specifically committed to the realization of new models for achieving local, national and global security that redirect the current wasteful and obscene levels of military spending toward the uncompromising and effective funding of: health and education programs; an end to discrimination; the provision of full and meaningful employment; and an end to poverty for all people....To achieve these goals, we dedicate ourselves to work within the general framework of the Democratic Party and with sister organizations to create a new, democratic, grassroots-based, nationally federated organization." -- from the website. <http://www.pdamerica.org/>
Contact Kerry-Edwards
The Kerry campaign can probably use your advice. To send them a message, go to
<http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/>. In a box on the right, look for "Policy and General Campaign Comments." The campaign is well-organized, so you should get a quick answer about Kerry-Edwards positions on your issues, and you can tell them what they might do better. There is list of offices for most states, and you can also write/call the national campaign at Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc., P.O. Box 34640, Washington, DC 20043; 202-712-3000 (voice), 202-712-3001 (fax).
<http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/>. In a box on the right, look for "Policy and General Campaign Comments." The campaign is well-organized, so you should get a quick answer about Kerry-Edwards positions on your issues, and you can tell them what they might do better. There is list of offices for most states, and you can also write/call the national campaign at Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc., P.O. Box 34640, Washington, DC 20043; 202-712-3000 (voice), 202-712-3001 (fax).
"Rain is the best policeman." - Police motto
Memo to Kerry Campaign:
Buy up available supplies of galoshes, rainhats and umbrellas;
hand out to voters as part of the "get out the vote" effort.
Seed the clouds over the red states on election day.
Buy up available supplies of galoshes, rainhats and umbrellas;
hand out to voters as part of the "get out the vote" effort.
Seed the clouds over the red states on election day.
Be All That You Can Be
"Besides, since [Jenna and I] graduated from college, we're looking around for something to do for the next few years." -- George W. Bush's daughter Barbara, addressing the Republican Convention. GoArmy.com
Quote: "...the excuse presidency..."
"His (Bush) is the excuse presidency -- never wrong, never responsible, never to blame ... no, it's not our fault; no, there's nothing wrong; no, we can't do better; no, we haven't made a single mistake." -- John Kerry (spotted on the energetic political blog, "I'm just sayin'..." <http://krupsjustsayin.blogspot.com/>)
Economic Bill of Rights
proposed by Franklin Roosevelt
In his State of the Union message to Congress on January 11, 1944, at a time when we were a much smaller country in terms of population and economic strength and were in the middle of fighting a world war, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for an “Economic Bill of Rights.” 
It is difficult to imagine a "serious" Democratic leader (i.e., not a Kucinich or a Sharpton) making such a policy address today:
"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people -- whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth -- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights -- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
"As our nation has grown in size and stature, however -- as our industrial economy expanded -- these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed.
"Among these are:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
"The right of every family to a decent home;
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
"The right to a good education.
"All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
"America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."
Source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950),
12 How. 152: “Necessitous men,” says the Lord Chancellor, in Vernon v Bethell, 2 Eden 113 (1762), “are not, truly speaking, free men; but, to answer a present emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose on them.”
I am grateful to Gary Gordon of The Fictional Times for drawing attention to this document. 40-42.
See, also: “One Third of a Nation”: FDR’s Second Inaugural Address
It is difficult to imagine a "serious" Democratic leader (i.e., not a Kucinich or a Sharpton) making such a policy address today:"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people -- whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth -- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights -- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
"As our nation has grown in size and stature, however -- as our industrial economy expanded -- these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed.
"Among these are:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
"The right of every family to a decent home;
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
"The right to a good education.
"All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
"America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."
Source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950),
12 How. 152: “Necessitous men,” says the Lord Chancellor, in Vernon v Bethell, 2 Eden 113 (1762), “are not, truly speaking, free men; but, to answer a present emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose on them.”
I am grateful to Gary Gordon of The Fictional Times for drawing attention to this document. 40-42.
See, also: “One Third of a Nation”: FDR’s Second Inaugural Address
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
