Tag Political Parties

Saving Congress

Michael 1 Comment

Did you get your deal on Amazon Prime Days. Maybe you picked picked up a special price on a Summer Black Friday at Best Buy. Or maybe you’re still cashing in on the Christmas in July savings at Target. As a consumer nation we are nothing if we aren’t a bunch of sheep.

That’s really not a horrible thing. I picked up a collector edition of a book I’ve been eyeing on a Thrift Books this week while grabbing a couple kitchen gadgets at Macy’s.com. Following the path of a bunch of other bargain hunters chasing sales thought up by other companies at another time of the year saved me over $70. That’s a month Internet service.

Unfortunately as a nation we are still a bunch of sheep when it comes to things like political alliances. I’m sure other than for George Washington and probably Gerald Ford, political mudslinging at our highest offices has been going on since the 1700s. (George and Jerry get excluded because neither one really had aspirations of becoming President as much as just were the benefactors (or victims) of circumstances. Recently though through the “miracle” of social media can the common man act as stupid as the ones we elect to office. In the years that started with a “1” it took organized efforts and multiple layers of volunteers to get people to believe their preferred politician was one miracle short of sainthood. Today that happens with blinding speed matched only by the efforts to convince followers that their least favorite politician is two steps ahead of the devil for the race to evil emperor.

We no longer care about right or wrong, truth or lie, sense or nonsense. If we read it on-line, particularly if it was posted by somebody we know well to have had a drink with or want to know well enough to buy a round of drinks for, we eat it up like sugar coated, double dipped, sprinkle laden ice cream in a waffle cone. I’m quite convinced many of not most of us know the tenets of the political party with which we identify or the actual background of its “stars players.” In my state a bill passed by the state legislature that, among other reforms including the purchase of new voting machines (which it could ill afford financially) was vetoed by the governor because it also called for the elimination of the single lever straight party voting option. Considering how Congress has itself voted with a straight party mentality for this century that shouldn’t have been a surprise coming from a politician.

I think I have a solution that can actually result in more amicable relations among all parties (apparent there actually are more than two), eliminate party voting mentality, and save us enough money to actually pay for things like health care, infrastructure, or education.

First we eliminate Congress. That’s not exactly right, we eliminate the Congressional presence in Washington. Since they have clearly demonstrated since 2001 that our elected officials – Representatives and Senators – vote en bloc however the leaders want them to vote there is no need for them in Washington. They can stay in their districts were they can actually serve the people by helping with disability forms, selecting Medicare supplement plans, and going to the occasional Fourth of July picnic. Back in Washington each house gets two representatives, one from each party who can hash out their own deals and compromises without the distraction of party rhetoric.

Second we forbid all elected officials from using social media and prepared press releases. If anybody wants to communicate with their constituents, and it is only their constituents they should be communicating with, they must do it in person. Because all but four representatives will be in their home districts that will not pose any burden. Further, if somebody already elected to an office wants to give up that office to run for another office, then he or she or other must actually give up their office. No ignoring their work so they can apply for another job.

Now here’s where the real fun stuff happens. Did you know the average average salary for the rank and file Congressman is $174,000. Majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate make $193,400. The Speaker of the House is the highest paid member of Congress at $223,500. (These are 2016 figures. A handful of websites reporting these salaries mention these salaries are comparable to mid-level managers in the private sector. They go on to say that Congress has not accepted a raise since 2009. I was firmly in the middle of mid level management and I can tell you I would have had to work almost two full years before I made $174,000 in 2009 dollars.) In addition, Congressmen are permitted to make up to 15% of their salary from outside salary sources like with the law firm they all seem to still belong to. There is no limit on non-salary sources of income such as interest, dividends, and honoraria. And of course they all get money to run their offices.

The staff allowance for members of the House of Representatives depends on the size of his district which is determined by the official U. S. Census but in 2016 the average allowance was $1,268,520. That’s not the total. That’s per representative. That’s almost 1.3 million dollars. Times 435 representatives that’s $551.8 million dollars. That’s over a half a billion dollars. For office expenses. Per year. Senators in 2016 averaged $3,306,570 allowance per Senator. The math here is pretty simple. That comes out to $330,657,000 for the full senate. Every year we spend over $882 million to staff representatives’ offices. If we eliminate half of their offices by limiting Congressional work to the local office that will save us $441 million.

And finally, because they all like to remind us of what our founding fathers meant when they said something, they should be paid like them. Not in 1789 dollars. That would be cruel. In 1789 a Senator only made $50 a day and had to cover his own expenses except for postage for official correspondence. They did get lunch though. Note that salary was not per year or per session, it was per day. Today’s Congress should be paid likewise. When a member shows up he or she or undecided can punch a clock and get paid for the days worked. Assuming 225 working days per year. That’s $773 per day. I think that’s more than fair. But since 2001 Congress has average only 138 legislative days per year the average Congressman can expect to take in about $107,000 per year. This will save us $35,845,000. Added to the $441 million we already saved we are now $477 million ahead.

That’s close enough to a half a billion for me. That’s about as much as the CDC gets for immunization research. Congress  might not still be worth the trouble they cause but maybe now we can find a cure for them!

Coming soon…Fixing the Presidency.

Capitol

An All American Special Edition

Michael Leave a comment

It’s not Monday. It’s not Thursday. Why is there a Real Reality post today? Because it’s Presidential Debate #3. Before you go running off, stick with me for just a minute. This is NOT a “political” post, it is NOT an endorsement, it is NOT a rant. It’s a plea to the American readers to stop and take a breath. I can’t take listening to the rants of everybody else – door knockers, phone callers, TV ads, political “experts,” and the so-call politicians themselves about how unfit these choices are.

Stop! I don’t care if you are fervently supporting one or the other, if you use your head and are truly honest to yourself, you see it too.

Look, every election from the second one has had at least one candidate harping on why the other candidate(s) is and/or are unfit for the office. But this has to be the first time that there have been NO ads by a candidate extolling past positive results by him or herself. If you were in the position to hire an employee for your workplace would you sit through an interview where the candidate never speaks to his or her past results but rather details the reasons why the other applicants are irresponsible choices and you shouldn’t have even ever considered them? Likewise, it you were applying for a job that comes with a guaranteed four year contract and the option for a similar extension, would you not probably spend as much time and energy as possible documenting your past work experience, successes, references, and plans for advancement?

For as many elections as I remember I have heard people say “I don’t like John Doe so I’m going to vote for Joe Smith.” But again, perhaps for the first time, are there television ads of people saying “I don’t agree with [fill in the blank, they’ve both run them], but I just can’t vote for [t’other one] so I’m going to vote for someone I really don’t care for either.” I’m sure when each party saw who the other party was going to nominate for president cheers went up around the wargames tables. And then when each party saw who their party was going to nominate for president eyebrows went up.

You know, there actually are other choices. On the presidential ballot in every state there will be a third candidate. Yep, if you really can’t see yourself brushing the touch screen (does anybody still have levers?) for Clinton or Trump you can consider Johnson. In at least 45 states (as of the end of last month, perhaps more by Election Day) you can also consider Stein. Don’t know who those other two are? You won’t see them on tonight’s debate any more than you’ll see any rational discussion of platforms, policies, or proposals. Plop them into your favorite search engine and search.

I meant what I said when I began this post. This is NOT an endorsement. I don’t mean to tell you that you should consider voting for a third, or a fourth party candidate. What I do mean to tell you is that if you are really going to make your vote count you better be making that vote based on something other than sound bites, attack ads, and non-debates. It takes more than just voting to do your civic duty. It takes casting an informed vote.

That’s what I think. Really. How ‘bout you?

The First Shall be Last

Michael Leave a comment

Now that the “major party” conventions are over the ads and pundits (neither having anything to do with reality) can begin. It was less than a week ago that news broadcasts, outlets, websites, feeds, and editors began remarking on the nation’s first woman candidate for president. Someone even went so far as to note that this fall, the US voters will get to cast ballots for their first woman, first outsider, or first third party president. And that on the heels of the outgoing first African-America president. Actually, none of those labels are correct. I’ll ‘splain that later. First, let’s look at some legitimate firsts that really have happened over this last year.

Actually the first first hasn’t officially happened yet but some games have already taken place and the opening ceremonies will take center stage tomorrow night in Rio. That first is the first Olympic games to be held in South America. The odds have been against that particular continent since the games re-appeared in 1896. That’s because South America is almost completely in the Southern Hemisphere. In the 120 year history of the modern Olympics this is only the third time the summer games have been held in the Southern Hemisphere. (The other two times have both been in Australia.) The Winter Olympics have never taken place south of the Equator.

The second first just happened in the past few days and it got very little press even within the United States which is odd since every news broadcast, outlet, website, etc., etc. was so big on talking about firsts. That news was that for the first time the Center for Disease Control released a travel advisory for within the US encouraging travelers not to do so in South Florida. They even came up with some suggestions for the people who live there – try to stay inside.

The third first is (and here let’s dispense with individually numbering each first and collectively address all the remaining firsts as “remaining firsts begin with”) Cuba now has wireless internet service for the first time. Sticking with computers, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a drug manufactured by 3D printing for the first time. (High dose Levetiracetam for epilepsy). Still with computers but heading back south, the Rio Olympics will be the first games where every event will be available somewhere on-line.  In entertainment of a different kind, a film grossed over 500 million dollars in its opening weekend for the first time (Jurassic World). And speaking of DNA (Jurassic World, remember) human trials on T-cell augmented cancer treatments using the body’s own cells to fight cancer began this year. And if you want to write about that and be grammatically correct while addressing a particular test subject without knowing his or her sex, you may now officially use the third person singular and not be chastised by your grade school English teacher.

So the next time you have to hear about the first woman running for president consider that there have been 5 women nominated by recognized political parties on general election ballots for president. In fact, 1884 the Equal Rights Party presented an all woman ticket for president and vice president. And the next time you have to hear about the first outsider running for president consider that four sitting presidents never held an elected position before being elected president. And when you next hear of how a third party candidate could win this year’s election consider that of the 44 elected presidents, only 30 have been republicans or democrats. One (Washington) had no party affiliation (and yes, there were political parties then), and one (Tyler) changed parties while in office.

If you should hear about any of these “firsts” feel free to mention to the speaker to not worry, there are lots of other real firsts going on all around us. All they have to do is pick their head out of their – ummm… All you have to do is look.

That’s what I think. Really. How ‘bout you?

Joe for President

Michael Leave a comment

We were talking the morning after the most recent Presidential Debate and came up with this question.  What would it be like if somebody ran for President who really wanted the job for the sake of the job.  Just a regular folk who decided to run for office.  No party affiliation, no special interest backing, no family legacy, no cultural impetus.  Just somebody who wants to be President.

You’d have to go back to the Washington/Adams election of 1788 to find someone who had to be talked into running for the office.  You certainly have to go back that far to find an election not controlled by political parties.  And then it was only one of the candidates, one G. Washington, who did not declare allegiance with a party.  That would be one out of 12 candidates.  All eleven others were affiliated with a political party.    

Back to our question though, what would it be like if the people who were running for President were just regular folks who decided to run for office?  Even back in 1788 you could hardly have called any of the candidates “just regular folk.”  Of the twelve there were 3 governors, 2 former governors, the U. S. Secretary of War, the U. S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the former Minister to Great Britain (Adams) and the former Commander in Chief of the Continental Army (Washington). 

Perhaps our backyards will give us a taste of what it would be like.  Although the United States is home to some of the largest cities in the world, there are many, many much smaller municipalities, all with municipal governments.  Some of the smallest might have only a single elected official, a mayor or an executive.  Some of the larger but still small communities have 3, 5, or 9 member boards of supervisors or commissioners.  Most of these officials serve for 4 or 6 year terms and if paid at all might consider their pay handsome if it makes it into three digits.  That’s for the entire year.  They decided to run because a road was bad, a sewer didn’t exist, a street light was ill-placed, or a developer was going to chop down a tree.  Their plights were real, their concerns legitimate, their opposition often fierce, and their recognition often absent.  But week after week, after working their 40 hours at a full time job they spend another 12 or 20 hours balancing the decision to buy the new police car against bargaining the new municipal tax service contract.  They have to appoint neighbors to the planning commission while explaining to other neighbors that they appointed someone else.  They spend hours deciphering the language to the ordinance restricting on-street parking during the winter so the snow plow can get through sufficient to explain it in 5 words or less on a too small and still too expensive sign.  They are just regular folks.  Working an irregular job. 

Perhaps if these men and women would ever want to run for President we might be able to elect a Chief Executive who understands taxes both from paying and spending.  Perhaps we can send someone to Washington whose new salary would mean a pay raise.  Instead these fine people want to stay local and help local issues.  The regular folks want to stay home.  With the folks.  Instead we get the people whose idea of an entry level political job is a term or two in the Senate or having been appointed Secretary of Something Useless by the President from two terms ago.

In 1788 George Washington agreed to run for President but would declare no party affiliation.  In fact, he hoped there would not be the formation of, or influence by political parties because it would lead to another thing to divide the people.  He took an office that came with the very large for the eighteenth century salary of $25,000.  Washington was already a very rich man and was going to refuse the salary.  He was convinced by members of Congress to take his pay so there would not be a precedent set that only the rich could become President.  It’s a shame that neither his hope that there would not be battling political parties nor that those other than the very rich could become President ever came true.

If just regular folks were to become President maybe we’d have a Leader who understands the difference between surplus food sent to countries who support violence against Americans and surplus food sent to schools for breakfast and lunch so the schools can still afford gym and music classes.  Maybe they would understand that you can’t appoint your brother in law the Secretary of Everything Outdoors when somebody else really understands that preservation, conservation, and recreation are more than words that rhyme.  Maybe we would have a President who isn’t afraid to tell the people when we’re in some pretty big financial trouble and all of us have to tighten our belts and include people whose work address ends in Washington, DC among the belt tighteners.

If just regular folks were to become President maybe we’d have a leader who knows you can’t be loyal to the people who voted for you and still answer to the party who picked you to be voted for.  If just regular folks were to become President we’d not have to legislate term limits.  They would be satisfied with the job they did after one or two rounds and would know it’s time to go back home with the other folks and get back to being just regular.

Maybe we did have a Just Regular Folk become President.  It was a while ago but the more we read about George Washington the more we’d like to have dinner with him.  And isn’t that the best judge of who’s just a regular Joe?  We mean George.

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?

 

 

Party Planning

Michael Leave a comment

Now that the conventions are over, the tickets are official, the platforms are assembled, the debates have begun, the candidates have spoken, the has-beens have spoken, the wannabes have spoken, the wives have spoken, the television pundits have spoken, — not much has been said.  We’re still sure we don’t like either of these unwise men.  And we’re still convinced our best choice is not between them (see None of the Above, August 13, 2012).  But we have a bit more clarity of the why we don’t like either of these party-ites.

It’s because they are party-ites.  They are the stereotypes of what we’ve come to imagine the parties are actually about. 

Willard Mitt Romney is the ultimate rich man.  Named for the family friend Willard Marriott of “The” Marriotts  and the famous don’t-tell-me-you-didn’t-know-him relative Milton Romney who played quarterback for the Chicago Bears in the 1920’s, is undoubtedly a rich man.  With or without tax returns this is a guy who bought entire companies like normal people buy entire kitchen knife sets.  He owns multiple houses, is alternately referred to as a “consultant” and a “venture capitalist,” and went to Harvard.  Even Republicans can’t identify with him because most Republicans aren’t rich.  He may have come off winning the debate but mostly because he was debating a real loser.

Barrack Hussain Obama, II is the quintessential Democrat mostly because the Democrats told us so. He is African American born of a Kenyan father and a white lady from Kansas (ok, so part African American), he has one house other than the White House, his religion is simply Christian, and he began his law career as a civil rights lawyer.  They don’t always mention that he received his undergraduate degree from Columbia and his law degree also from Harvard and if they do, then it’s in the context of isn’t it great that a black man can go to Ivy League Universities too.  He has also worked as a consultant, and is a published author.  In fact, he’s made about $6 million from his and his wife’s book sales and that one house they live in (other than the White House) is worth $1.65 million.  His performance at the debate was more of one being forced to a book signing rather than one who understood what he wrote.

Neither of these puppies is what the politicos want you to think of them.  The Republicans have got to stop nominating people who flaunt their millions of dollars in the public’s face.  The Democrats have got to stop nominating people who have so many millions they can’t hide them all and often meet the Republican stereotype better than most of the Republicans. 

Less than an hour after the conclusion of the debate, as close to what we have as “legitimate news outlets” were pointing out the misleading statements, almost-truths, half-truths, and “just plain not right” uttered between the banter and the mockery.  Neither of these party-ites resembles Lincoln or Jackson.  It’s a sad fact that probably some of those who call themselves Democrat or Republican can’t identify which is which nor which side either was on during the debate.  

If they should figure out their true directions then we may consider what the major parties’ candidates have to say about some of the important issues going on in the country.  Until then, we’ll stick with “none of the above” and find someone who will.

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?