Congress and the Public - Kudos to Sarah Palin

In my last post entitled "Discussions With My Readership" I quoted Judge Edwin S. Bernstein Esq. of Boynton Beach Florida as pointing out that: “our basic problem is the influence that money has on elected officials.” A truer word could not be said, but it is not the fault of the Congress. It is the system that keeps every Congressman or Senator, beholden to those who finance their campaigns and in fear of those who will bankroll their opponents. We have seen this recently in the Republican primaries, where a number of “Independent Groups” who for whatever their reasons want the nomination to go to Mitt Romney unloaded on the surging Newt Gingrich and had his poll numbers down in a matter of days. $4,470,935 had been spent by these groups and other non-profits to oppose him (Gingrich) as of the end of last week. But just when all seemed lost for Gingrich, casino king and America’s eighth-richest person Sheldon Adelson has given $5 million to Winning Our Future, a political action committee that supports Gingrich’s campaign, according to The Washington Post. And the money comes just in time for the former Speaker of the House, who just placed fourth in the Iowa caucus. Gingrich’s Super PAC will reportedly use the money to run advertisements that directly attack Romney for destroying jobs and profiting from failed companies while at the head of private equity giant Bain Capital. See here.

This is in the Presidential race, but Congress is just as much if not more beholden to the deep pockets. Recent estimates reveal that many members spend anywhere from 25 percent up to 50 percent (and sometimes more) of their time fundraising. 

Whether that is the reason, or at least one of the reasons, that Congress is held in such low esteem is hard to tell from the polls. What we do know is that the public holds Congress in what can only be described as contempt. According to Gallup’s latest poll, 11% approve of the job Congress is doing and 86% disapprove. 

The reasons for this are many. But the gridlock, the gamesmanship, and the brinksmanship are certainly a major reason. Many, too many in my opinion, react with throw all the bums out, which strikes me as simplistic and downright foolhardy. The only way to reform a corrupt system is to spend the time to know what each and every member of Congress stands for and to be selective.

What we do know is that Republicans are not entirely unhappy with this result. They are anti-government, (being anti government used to be the purview of anarchists who were feared and hated, so much so that the Zacco and Venzetti case is a landmark of the hysteria surrounding that movement) and so a bad opinion of government serves their end. If gridlock, by filibustering, brings about a bad opinion of government, that serves their end. If governing badly creates hostility to government that serves their end, but of course, not if it costs them votes.

So let us examine more of the reasons for the contempt Congress is held in. Part of it is the result of a concerted campaign of lies intended to besmirch Congress. Thus I recently received an e-mail, (one of many in the same vain that I have received over the years.) I went through it – and found that almost every word was a lie and yet a good friend had forwarded it to me with approval. The public’s naiveté never ends.

I urge my readers to first read the e-mail in full without any comment from me. You can find it here. 

Now let me address the lies. The portions from the e-mail to which I have reference appear in italics. My comments thereon appear in bold letters.

How Can We Make This Happen?

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure. Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Most of the above was not said by Warren Buffett. He did say: “I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election" but it was said in jest. See here. What Buffet did say in all seriousness and it is very sound is, "the debt ceiling should be done away with, arguing it is nothing more than an “artificial limit” that ends up wasting time in Congress. See here.

As for eliminating the deficit, that is not so easily done. It was done under the Clinton Administration, but eight years of the Bush Administration’s tax cutting and unnecessary spending, ending in the greatest recession since the Depression of the ‘30s makes it a very difficult task. Ending the Bush Tax cuts would make a large dent, but would not do the job alone. Cutting alone would require doing away with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the SEC, the Fed, the FDA and all the programs of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. As I have said before and will again, adjustments to Social Security and Medicare are absolutely necessary, but the draconian approach of doing away with these programs, as is proposed in the Ryan budget is neither necessary nor desirable. And As I have also said before the Ryan budget actually increases the deficit by $6 trillion. See here.

Now allow me to take the rest of lies one by one.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011    
    

 1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives pay when they're out of office.

                                               

This is the law now.

2.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

                         

This is the law now.                                               

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

                                               

The congressional Retirement system is no different than that given by most corporations to their employees and is the same as that given to all federal employees. Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation. Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS. 

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes. Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. See here.

The Social Security Trust Fund is intact. It is invested in U.S. Treasury Securities, from where it collects interest and the Securities are the safest in the world.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

That too is the current system.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

This too is the current law or something close to it. Congressional cost-of-living adjustments are calculated using a formula based on changes in private-sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index. However, Congress can refuse such raises. A bill nixing Congress' automatic 2011 pay raise was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The move marks the second consecutive year lawmakers have opted not to receive their automatic cost-of-living increase. The law governing congressional pay raises requires members to vote against getting a raise. Otherwise, the increase takes effect automatically. But keeping pay for members low is not desirable. Rich members don't need their salary at all, while it discourages people who are not rich from serving in the Congress.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Members of Congress are covered by private insurance under the same system that covers all federal workers. Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees, and their families. 

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

That is the law at present. Members of Congress are not exempt from any laws that apply to others. 

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

There are no contracts with members, or past members of Congress. If there were any, their voidance by legislative fiat, like all contracts by anyone, would violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

Now there other valid reasons to be critical of Congress and I urge readers to demand of their representatives in both the House and the Senate to take action as recommended by Sarah Palin. Yes, I said Sarah Palin. Kudos to Sarah Palin for her totally valid demand for reform of the Congress, which was exposed by the TV program 60 Minutes. You can watch the relevant portion of that program here. 

And then read the article by Sarah Palin here.

Write to your members of Congress and ask them to act on Palin’s recommendation, which I think to our media’s discredit has not gotten the publicity, which it deserves. The media is only interested in politics as a sporting event.

An Announcement – Discussion II

On November 8, 2011 I posted "An Announcement – Discussion" that set forth the comments and my responses with respect to "An Announcement" which was posted on November 4, 2011.

Since then I have received some additional input, which I would like to share with you. Paul Negri of Clifton, NJ the former President of Dover Publications and the editor of more than two dozen books made this comment:

Satire is, I think, one of the most difficult genres to write and you've done a good job with it here. The trick is expressing what you want to say by preposterously advocating the opposite. I think you do that well, particularly with Cain and Romney and your treatment of Obama. Perry and the others get rather short shrift here. I do think Perry and Bachmann make even better targets for satire, as they are truly ridiculous figures (frankly, I think Cain is ridiculous too). 

My taste in satire runs to the absurd, to an even more overtly over-the-top humor and a more poisonous wit. So I've edited the first several paragraphs of your piece to show you what I mean. It doesn't mean that my edits are better, just illustrative of a more absurdist satirical style (see attached).

I'd love to see you skewer Perry and Bachmann in more detail and deflate that windbag Gingrich too. Of course, none of this will convert the conservative faithful, but may tickle the fence-sitters into thinking a bit more.

Had fun with this and only wish American politics was not, at heart, so sad.

 In addition he lent his editing skills to my efforts in "An Announcement" His revisions with his additions shown in blue and his deletions in red can be found here.


Albert Nikemkin of Vienna, Virginia sent my essay to a friend, Benjamin A. Feinberg and shared his exchange, as follows:

I take it that Scheller is kidding or not feeling well?

To which Nikemkin responded:

It's a satire, of course! He anticipated that it would be a risky initiative and, as your response proves, he was right!!

Nikemkin then added this observation directed to me:

I like your foray into satire, especially your willingness to take the risk that some readers might think you serious--which is always the risk of satire. Nevertheless, I hope you will forgive me for not making a campaign contribution, at least for now. Your approach was to push the envelope and exaggerate what we are actually hearing from the Republican candidates--a risky venture since what they really say is veering closer as every day passes to your intended exaggeration!

Next time I will continue with my discussion of, “What can and should we do about the deficit… Where can we and should we cut?” which I started in my post "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part VI)."

An Announcement.

After long and careful consideration and extensive discussion with my family and my dog, and with an abiding faith in the greatness of America, I hereby announce my candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

I have made this decision, not out of any desire to advance any self–interest for me or my friends or supporters, but out of a deep conviction that I may be the only one who can save this country from the decline, which everyone agrees it is in, and to save it from the fascistic, socialistic Nazi who now occupies the White House.

At a time when our economy is in a funk, when our working people are unable to find jobs, and the world has lost respect for our leadership, I intend to turn that around and bring back the America that our founding fathers knew.

Now I don’t intend to waste my time talking about the present incumbent, who has given up America’s world leadership and after three years has left the Nation with unacceptably high unemployment, slow growth, and has allowed between 11.5 million to 12 million criminals to live among us. Let me be clear, the undocumented among us, have broken our laws and therefore are criminals and even their children, their anchor babies, have not been admitted legally and are therefore criminals.

What I do want talk about are my opponents for the Republican nomination and why I am better suited to be President of the United States than any of them.

On the domestic front the leading contender right now is Herman Cain. Now my good friend Herman has promised that if elected he will abolish the income tax as we know it and give us a 9-9-9 plan which he assures us will increase our growth of our GDP from the present anemic 2.5% to 5%. I say that isn’t good enough. Now my plan is 4.5-4.5-4.5, which will be a much lower burden on the American Taxpayer and will increase our growth rate to 10%. The trouble with Herman and the rest of the field is that they just are not ambitious enough.

I recognize that there will be many among the elite and pointed headed economists who will say that this is pie in the sky. But I tell you – don’t listen to them- they are the ones who have brought us to the fix we are in. We don’t need, and don’t want a lot of Ivy League graduates dictating to us. Most of us have never gone to any college and we have more common sense than the elite pointy headed fools, many of whom spend their time teaching, and have never learned how to make real money.

Now let me talk about my good friend Mitt Romney. He wouldn’t even say how much his tax plan would increase our economic growth. He put out a plan that he calls “Believe in America” that is 85 pages long. Now anything that long is obviously not something most Americans are likely to read and that’s the way he wants it. Because he doesn’t want Americans to know that he plans to only increase the growth in GDP By 4%. 4%! That just isn’t good enough. I say vote for me and get a 10% increase in GDP and full employment.

Now Romney wants to eliminate taxation on capital gains, dividends, and interest for any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000. That is nothing less than class warfare. Why should we tax capital gains, dividends, and interest on any one? I propose eliminating this tax all together, so that it can be used to invest and create jobs. My 4.5-4.5-4.5 tax will do that.

Now on defense, I believe that we must regain our leadership role in the world. We have to stop allowing other countries telling us what they want. We need to give them their marching orders and demand they get in line. That is leadership and we are not going to get that with Namby Pamby diplomatic negotiations.

Now my friend Herman doesn’t think he needs to know the names of the heads of state, or the names of a bunch of countries, and I agree with him. There are 193 countries in the UN. I bet even that pointy-headed Obama doesn’t know them all and forget about knowing their heads of state. Who cares?

But I do think it is important to know who has the atomic bomb. Herman said about China, “They’ve indicated that they’re trying to develop nuclear capability.” Herman, they did that in 1964, and our then Democrat President let them.

Now Romney said: The choice facing Americans is “very simple,” “If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.”

Now I agree with him about Obama. But Mitt and Brother Herman wouldn’t be much better. Where were they when they let our Congress agree to a deal with Obama that cuts defense spending by $600 billions, on top of cuts already agreed to, if the super committee doesn’t reach agreement, and I bet they wouldn’t? We need to increase defense spending if we are going to be the leaders of the world that I want us to be.

I am outraged that Obama is pulling our troops out of Iraq and getting ready to pull out of Afghanistan. If we are going to protect our vital interests in that part of the world we have to dominate it and we can’t do that with namby pamby military policies.

We have the atomic bomb. It is time we used the power that goes with it. We need to tell Iran stop your atomic program or we will stop it for you, by dropping the bomb on you. That will solve that problem. We need to have a similar approach to Pakistan. They have the bomb but they don’t have a delivery system that can reach the US. So we are safe from their atomic bomb. Tell them to cooperate in fighting terrorist groups, or we will drop the bomb on them. I bet we will get cooperation and the rest of the world will get the message. That is leadership.

We need a President who does not believe in half measures. Half measures will not get us there. I am the only one who has the will to do what is necessary to return America to greatness.

And I am the only non-politician in this race. I never ran for or occupied any political office and never ran for one till now. I spent my whole life in the private sector.

Romney was the governor of that Democrat-Socialist state of Massachusetts, where he gave us Romneycare, and where he was for babykilling. I wouldn’t trust that guy. And how can he say he is not a politician?

My brother Herman ran for the Senate from Georgia in 2004 and he was a lobbyist. He also lost his race for the Senate, which makes him a loser. We don’t need that.

Perry, who has made a fool of himself again and again in this run for the Presidency, is the Governor of Texas, where he set up a huge patronage machine. I think that makes him a politician.

And on and on. Bachman and Paul are in Congress now, and Gingrich even used to be Speaker until he got kicked out in a scandal.

So there you have it. Vote for Scheller for President. Contributions to my campaign are urgently solicited.

Comments are solicited and will be distributed unless the contributor requests that they not be or that the comment may be distributed without attribution.

Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies

In my last commentary, entitled: ”Health Insurance Reform," I addressed some misconceptions about our health care. I pointed out that it is far from the best system in the world. Depending on the criterion we use it ranks 24th, 72nd and 30th according to our own CDC. Lately the UK system has come in for some bashing but it comes in 14th on life expectancy, a lot better than the US, but it is severely under funded.

According the conservative British newspaper, The Guardian that has a cross-reference under the heading, Data: health spending around the world the per capita expenditure on health in the UK is $ 2,784. For the US it is $6,714 and when measured by total expenditure on health as a percentage of gross domestic product, we find that the UK spends 8.4% while the US spends 15.3%. We spend two to three times what Britain spends and get poorer result and then critics of US reform bash the British. Nobody is proposing adopting the British system but we could do worst. It is certainly better than the one we have.

The bashing of the British system got to be such a sport that Investor's Business Daily wrote an editorial saying, “People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.” When Stephen Hawking, upon hearing of this, pointed out that he is British, and it is the British Health Service that has kept him alive, the paper pulled this nonsense from its pages and blog. But the right wing, Rupert Murdoch-owned NY Post, stuck to the lie by writing:

“One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

Scary, and a boldface lie, despite the reference to page numbers in the bill. The section referred to according to the Associated Press was authored by Republican Reps. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Patrick Tiberi of Ohio and would authorize Medicare to pay for counseling if desired in the preparation of Living Wills. The AP article goes on to point out that “just a year ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. And the government already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support, under a 1992 law passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush.”

But just about any lie will do to stop reform because in the words Republican Senator Jim DeMint "If we are to stop Obama on this, (referring to Health Care Reform) it would be his Waterloo. It will break him."

What is good for the country doesn’t matter. What matters is “breaking Obama.” They wouldn’t debate on the merits. On the merits they lose. And we know they don’t have a case when they start putting out boldface outrageous lies. And so what used to be something they were for, now becomes something that is euthanasia. And they all jump on the bandwagon. It started with that sterling Republican leader Sarah Palin when she put on her Facebook page, “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.” 

Such a system would be downright evil, but no such system is, was, or ever will be considered. What is evil is the lie. One might hope other Republicans would immediately repudiate it, but no, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich defended the bizarre claim by Palin.

Well, I don’t know if such outlandish lies will stop needed reform, but they have succeeded in killing the provision that would allow being reimbursed for the cost of getting advice from your physician on what provisions you want in a Living Will, that, by the way, can provide that you want to live no matter what the state of your health is. If you want to live in a vegetative state for decades you can provide for that in a Living Will. All it does is tell providers what your wishes are when you are not able to do so any more. It avoids the situation that occurred in the infamous Schiavo case.

But the outrageous get even worse, if that is possible. Glen Beck on Fox News actually went into detail on the Nazi extermination programs suggesting the Health reform mimics the Nazis and Rush Limbaugh proceeded to describe the ways Democrats are like Nazis -- a list that included their dedication to animal rights and their opposition to smoking and pollution. 

Jewish groups including the Israeli lobby, AIPAC were outraged, but nothing seems to be too low for people whose only allegiance is to the insurance companies and the drug companies and who will use any tactics to defeat what is not an option but a necessity.

I have questions about the cost of the bill and how it will be paid for. We all have questions of one kind or another. Some, particularly the very rich, the insurance companies and the drug companies, may be better off without reform and they are entitled to be against it. But when outrageous lies are used, we know that the opposition is bankrupt. An honest and civil debate is called for. Lies, smears, and scare tactics have no place in a discussion of such a crucial subject.

The Death of Outrage

William Bennett recently wrote a book entitled, "The Death of Outrage."

He had a very distorted sense of what we should be outraged about, but my friends, we do have reason to be outraged, and I have a sense that you and millions of others are not outraged enough.

The Bush administration is the most devious, deceptive and dangerous administration to govern the United States since the Great Depression. It is so dangerous because while it talks the talk of moderation and bipartisanship it is pushing an agenda that is so extreme and so radical that it makes the Reagan and Gingrich agendas mild by comparison.

This administration desires not only to undo the accomplishments of the Johnson administration and do away with Medicare and Medicaid by making sure there is not enough funding for it. It seeks to privatize (a euphemism for abolishing) the landmark achievements of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, notably Social Security, its protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. It seeks to do away with our achievements going back to 1916, when the modern Estate Tax became law. No, my friends, the Estate Tax, deceptively renamed the "Death Tax," is not a new innovation by some radical social reformers, it has been part of our political and social fabric for more than three quarters of a century.

The distinguished Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Lois Brandeis, once said, "You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, or democracy. But you cannot have both." He was right. My friends, the very essence of our Democracy is at stake.

We have a dangerous trend in this country. So many of us feel comfortable these days that we are not paying attention to what is happening. By the time we wake up it will be too late.

In 1976 10% of the American people owned 49% of the wealth of America; the remaining 90% owned 51%. Pretty shocking; But by 1999 10% owned 73% of all wealth; 90% owned 27% of the remaining wealth.

This is a very disturbing trend and it is continuing. This mal-distribution is the problem of South America and indeed Russia. It is economically unsound, for what is now widely recognized, is that the economy is driven by consumer demand and concentrated wealth cannot drive this demand. It can only invest and invest until supply far exceeds demand and depression inevitably follows.

Furthermore, wealth equals power, as Clinton's pardon of Rich so amply demonstrates. But as outrageous as that act may be, it pales by comparison to the way powerful groups like the tobacco industry, the insurance industry and various other powerful forces give millions of their largess to members of Congress in return for billions from the public trough.

This ever greater concentration of wealth has taken place despite a graduated income tax, an inheritance tax and a gift tax, though we have been allowing the rich to avoid paying capital gains taxes by the mere expedient of passing assets to their heirs, rather than selling them or giving them to charity. We need to take steps to slow down this concentration of wealth. Instead this administration, demonstrating the power that wealth already commands, wants to flatten the income tax and do away with the estate tax. We should be doing the opposite. The estate tax law is already in the process of increasing the tax free exemption from $695,000 to 1,000,000 per person, thus allowing an exemption of $2,000,000 per couple, How much more do children need, and of course they can inherit an infinite amount after paying a portion in taxes. What has happened to our work ethic when we give each succeeding generation such largesse?

And if those who are more concerned with other issues think that they are unrelated, let me assure them that they are not. Let those who believe that the cost of pharmaceutical for our senior citizens should be covered by insurance not be deceived by Bush's lip service. He has never offered a viable plan to accomplish this and part of the reason for these huge tax cuts is to make sure that no money will be available for such a program. Those who are concerned about the state of our education and are impressed by the lip service given it by our self-styled "education" President, let me suggest that they should listen less to the words and more to the budget. The old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is" is applicable here as elsewhere. When a sports facility is more than twenty years old we hear about it being hopelessly outdated and in need of replacement with taxpayer funds. No corporation would run its operations out of obsolete facilities, but the powerful financial interests who want to "return the ‘surplus’ to the people" see nothing wrong with school buildings a century or older and with a lack of books or library facilities." Part of the purpose of ridding the treasury of the "surplus" the American people hope to accumulate, is to make sure that such social needs are never met.

There can only be a surplus after our debts have been paid and our needs have been met. Given our huge debt, the result of the last egregious tax cut for the rich under Reagan, and our societal needs it is questionable whether there is a "surplus." But if part of our hoped for surplus is to be given back to the American people, let us give it back to all the American people in equal measure. Let every American man, woman, and child get an equal amount. There were almost 228 million Americans in 1999. Probably somewhat more in 2001. The Treasury could send out a check for $1,000 to each person, $4,000 for a family of four during the year 2001. The bill would come to only $228 billion Dollars. We are told we need to stimulate the economy and I can think of no more effective or quicker way to do this than to immediately send out checks to the American people. This could be passed with bipartisan support if the President were to support it and he will, if we, the American people, demand it. If some balance between spending and saving were to be desired the payments to every person under 18 could be placed in an IRA to be invested on the child's behalf and would become available to such child upon reaching maturity for college education or could, at the child's option, be left to increase until retirement and become a supplement to Social Security. And if surpluses do develop in future years over and above our societal needs, such payments could be made for as many years as tax receipts exceed public expenditures, set asides for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and a payment of 10% on the National Debt. As the President has said, The money belongs to the American people. Let us give it to the American people, rich and poor alike in equal measure. Above all let us not empty the treasury of funds required to pay for crucial societal needs.

As for the Bush argument that no one should have to pay more than 33% in taxes, it is hard to see why not if they make huge amounts. Besides few if any do pay 33%, even if their marginal tax rate is at that level. They are, in fact, paying less and less, while making more and more. In 1996 the top 1% of taxpayers paid 28.9%, in 1997, 27.9% and in 1998, 27.1%. At the same time their income went up between 1989 and 1998, even when adjusted for inflation, by 40.4% as opposed to an increase of 5.2% for the bottom 90%. Between 1997 and 1998 the top incomes after taxes went up by 13.1%; the bottom by 3.9%.

As can be seen from the above the tax system is skewed to the rich. Let us demand that it be made fairer. That will not happen in this Administration. But let us resolve that even in this Administration it will not be made even more unfair.

Let us show that we have not succumbed to the "Death of Outrage."

The New York Times on February 14, 2001 published an article entitled: "Dozens of Rich Americans Join In Fight to Retain the Estate Tax" which can be found here.